Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Let's pretend to be Mr Spock for a minute and engage in some Vulcan Logic

We're all familiar with this:

A well regulated Militia

Logically, what does a well regulated militia mean?

Well, there'd be age requirements - you wouldn't let a 5 year old carry a gun around.

Health and fitness requirements - a man with no hands wouldn't be able to hold a gun, you would want people to be reasonably fit for fighting, and of course, mentally ill people with certain conditions, probably wouldn't get in the militia either.

Most people would think the above to be reasonable, so already we've compromised on what a well regulated militia is.

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

California is saying you can have a gun, just not a concealed gun, unless you have a permit. A reasonable compromise that takes in law enforcement concerns, IMO.

So, to conclude, most people would be happy to compromise on what a well regulated militia is, so why not compromise on this issue of concealed weapons on a state by state basis? There's wiggle room here and people's fundamental right to carry a gun, is not being stopped...

A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.

Owning firearms is a consitutionally protected right. Carry concealed pistols in public spaces is a regulated right but regulations that are used to effectively bar ownership or the use of firearms for self defense are unconsitutional per SCOTUS. That's already been decided.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The most powerful weapons of naval warfare available now are nuclear missiles. Not surprisingly, no-one is keen for private citizens to be able to own them.

This is something of a moot example as they're also not something that a private citizen would have the means to produce and procure short of having the sum total resources of a Bill Gates turned to such an endeavor.

That said US citizens can and do own things like howitzers, anti-tank guns, tanks, mortars, even some chemical weapons (Israeli Tear Gas .308 ammunition for instance can be bought and used like any other ammunition, at least at a Federal level).

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Seaward wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
The founders drafted the 2nd in an age where people carried muskets on their backs and heavy pistols by their sides.

They also carried them in an age where private citizens were allowed and often encouraged by the government to own the most powerful weapons of naval warfare available.

If we go by the spirit of the 2nd, then your average citizen should be able to keep nuclear weapons, as technically, these are 'arms.'

Of course, nobody objects about being denied the right to keep nuclear weapons in their back yard.

Cars are also potentially dangerous, but nobody objects to the requirement of a driving licence before operating a motor vehicle.

Nobody's rights are being infringed, if California passes a law saying you need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. It's a reasonable compromise that takes in the concerns of law enforcement agencies.

The big issue is really that CA's "May Issue" laws on concealed carry permits are effectively "no issue" in most places. It's one thing to require a permit, it's another to require it and then refuse to issue them.

Obviously, every state is different, but considering California seems to elect the same lawmakers year after year, the citizens of California seemed satisfied with things as they are.

Having lived in CA most of my life, I can tell you it's not so much that we *liked* the people being elected year after year, but that the alternatives floated by opposition generally were even worse (and also that election districts really are very gerrymandered). For instance, I don't know anyone who likes Barbara Boxer, but then when given Fiorina as an alternative...

A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be stopped from exercising their 2nd amendment rights. I'm saying that:

No objects when 5 year olds are prevented from joining militias.

Nobody would object if a blind man or woman was prevented from joining a militia.

Nobody would object if somebody suffering from severe mental illness was prevented from joining a militia.

Nobody objects if citizens are not allowed to keep nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows it.

The meaning of what a well regulated militia is, has seen reasonable comprise and common sense agreed upon by society over the years.

So if people are happy to compromise on one aspect of the 2nd (well regulated militia) why is there a problem with compromising on other aspects of the 2nd, as long as the fundamental right is not violated?

Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.

If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.

Prestor Jon wrote:
A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.

This is where going to have to disagree, then, because the only twisting and contorting I see is twisting exactly what you said - in order to have a militia - into the very recent idea that the actual meaning was an individual right to self defense.

I'm not a textualist. I'm fine with the fact that we have essentially extrapolated out a right to individual defense where there explicitly isn't. I'm also ok with the right to privacy that conservatives claim didn't exist until Row v Wade. However, I don't think you can honestly parse any difference between those decisions, in terms of "inventing rights".

Prestor Jon wrote:
Owning firearms is a consitutionally protected right. Carry concealed pistols in public spaces is a regulated right but regulations that are used to effectively bar ownership or the use of firearms for self defense are unconsitutional per SCOTUS. That's already been decided.

No argument there, though. If the state bans open carry and also is may-issue, and refuses to so either directly or indirectly, I think it's a clear constitutional violation as they have left you no outlet to "bear" arms.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.

Unfortunately with respect to CA (the primary legal arena of the 9th), it's basically all give and no take with the 2nd.

If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.

This is how the court ruled previously on CA carry permits in the Peruta case, stating that since open carry was illegal, concealed carry then must be more freely allowed.

 Ouze wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
A militia consists of volunteer armed civilians therefore in order to have a proper militia civilians need to have their right to kep and bear arms inviolate for without privately owned arms there is no militia. The meaning of the 2nd amendmen really isn't hard to grasp when it's viewed objectively and not twisted and parsed in the most convoluted manner in order to try to shoehorn it into a particular political agenda.

This is where going to have to disagree, then, because the only twisting and contorting I see is twisting exactly what you said - in order to have a militia - into the very recent idea that the actual meaning was an individual right to self defense.

I'm not a textualist. I'm fine with the fact that we have essentially extrapolated out a right to individual defense where there explicitly isn't. I'm also ok with the right to privacy that conservatives claim didn't exist until Row v Wade. However, I don't think you can honestly parse any difference between those decisions, in terms of "inventing rights".

Prestor Jon wrote:
Owning firearms is a consitutionally protected right. Carry concealed pistols in public spaces is a regulated right but regulations that are used to effectively bar ownership or the use of firearms for self defense are unconsitutional per SCOTUS. That's already been decided.

No argument there, though. If the state bans open carry and also is may-issue, and refuses to so either directly or indirectly, I think it's a clear constitutional violation as they have left you no outlet to "bear" arms.

The 2A doesn't address self defense just private ownership of firearms. The right to self defense is a natural right. Everybody has the right to protect himself/herself from being harmed from unwarranted aggression, regardless of whether or not firearms are involved. Since we have a constitutional right to bear arms and a natural right to self defense and firearms are very effective tools for self defense the two are often paired together but they are two different rights that exist independently from each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.

Unfortunately with respect to CA (the primary legal arena of the 9th), it's basically all give and no take with the 2nd.

If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.

This is how the court ruled previously on CA carry permits in the Peruta case, stating that since open carry was illegal, concealed carry then must be more freely allowed.

Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.

Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.

SCOTUS also set the precedent that the 1st amendment wasn't a blank cheque to say what you want, hence the whole shouting FIRE in a cinema ruling.

For more than 250 years, American society has compromised, tested, and adapted the bill of rights to meet the needs of society at that particular time.

Not long ago, people didn't mind when African-Americans were denied the right to vote or own firearms. Obviously that has changed.

Lincoln had to adapt to the extraordinary circumstances of the American Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus to stop Maryland from turning Confederate... and so on....

Tensions and forces exist in society that will always be pushing the limits of the constitution. That isn't to say we should throw it out the window, but compromise and common sense play a part.

When the 2nd was drafted, you had muskets firing 3 rounds a minute. Nowadays, we have guns that spit out hundreds of rounds per minute.

Things change, people change, attitudes change, society changes.

In that regard, the 2nd amendment is no different.

SCOTUS ruled one way on the Heller case. Who's to say that years from now, SCOTUS won't rule the other way on a similar case?

Can't we just jump ahead to ultimate positions?

Constitutional Literalist 1 (aka Gun Hater): The Second Amendment is intended for maintaining militias- no militia, no firearm.

Constitutional Literalist 2 (aka Gun Nut): SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! We should be able to walk around with heavy artillery!

Rationalist: Every right is subject to limitation. Let's just look to see if a restriction is reasonable or if it is actually overbroad and an attempt to undermine the fundamental aspects of a constitutional right.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Politics is the art of compromise, and the 2nd is not immune to this IMO.

Unfortunately with respect to CA (the primary legal arena of the 9th), it's basically all give and no take with the 2nd.

If I were American and somebody said you can open carry, but not have a concealed carry, I wouldn't mind at all.

This is how the court ruled previously on CA carry permits in the Peruta case, stating that since open carry was illegal, concealed carry then must be more freely allowed.

Then it's for the voters of California to sort this out at the ballot box.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Exactly. Carry permit regulations can't be used to make an end run around a citizen's right to keep and bear arms. SCOTUS has already set that precedent rather clearly.

SCOTUS also set the precedent that the 1st amendment wasn't a blank cheque to say what you want, hence the whole shouting FIRE in a cinema ruling.

For more than 250 years, American society has compromised, tested, and adapted the bill of rights to meet the needs of society at that particular time.

Not long ago, people didn't mind when African-Americans were denied the right to vote or own firearms. Obviously that has changed.

Lincoln had to adapt to the extraordinary circumstances of the American Civil War when he suspended habeas corpus to stop Maryland from turning Confederate... and so on....

Tensions and forces exist in society that will always be pushing the limits of the constitution. That isn't to say we should throw it out the window, but compromise and common sense play a part.

When the 2nd was drafted, you had muskets firing 3 rounds a minute. Nowadays, we have guns that spit out hundreds of rounds per minute.

Things change, people change, attitudes change, society changes.

In that regard, the 2nd amendment is no different.

SCOTUS ruled one way on the Heller case. Who's to say that years from now, SCOTUS won't rule the other way on a similar case?

The 2A doesn't change just because society changes, it changes when the people pressure their representatives to change it by amending the constitution. That's what the amendment process is for. The Heller and McDonald cases are recent and clear in regards to how states/municipalities can regulate gun ownership. They stand as precedent until such time as they are overturned, if that ever happens. Laws don't just change by themselves, they stay the same until they are changed by new legislation or court rulings.

If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?

I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?

Compromises don't just happen. What you're talking about occurs over time as new laws, regulations and court rulings are made. Something like changing social attitudes or technological advancement don't have the ability to rewrite laws. If people want more regulations or compromise they can vote for representatives who promise to pass such legislation or vote on pertinent ballot initiateves etc. Personal or public opinions don't change what laws mean.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?

I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?

Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.

The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.

My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.

If California passed laws that said you could only own red handguns, or you were allowed to bear arms, but only if they were English Longbows, I would see their point, but I see nothing wrong with changing societies compromising, and using common sense to agree on things.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
If people were willing to accept a compromise on the 1st amendment, then what's wrong with a compromise on the 2nd amendment?

I don't understand what this means. There are already a great many restrictions on the second amendment. Can you be more specific?

Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.

The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.

My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.

If California passed laws that said you could only own red handguns, or you were allowed to bear arms, but only if they were English Longbows, I would see their point, but I see nothing wrong with changing societies compromising, and using common sense to agree on things.

That's not an accurate representation of the the case heard by the 9th Circuit or their ruling.

CA law says that CA residents can obtain concealed carry permits from their county sherrif if residents can show good moral character, good cause and have taken a safety course. Two plaintiffs filed suit because their respective county sherrifs were setting the bar for "good cause" to a degree of specificity that prohibited them from getting permits even though they followed all the legal steps to obtain their pistols and fill out their carry permit applications. SCOTUS ruled in the Heller v DC decision that it was unconsitutional to have regulations that prevented legally owned firearms from being capable of being used in self defense. This decision by the 9th Circuit appears to contradict SCOTUS' Heller decision that you can't allow ownership of firearms but then regulate away the ability to use them.

Again, the nuclear weapon thing is kinda off base. Such weapons are beyond the ability of private citizens to produce and procure, the expense, danger, and knowledgebase required for these weapons inherently makes them weapons of the state, not the citizen.

Likewise, as far as I can tell there is no explicit law forbidding the ownership of a nuclear weapon, rather, the materials used are highly controlled because even aside from making nuclear bombs they typically are extremely dangerous simply to be even near, and their production so resource intensive that the only sources of them would be either governmental or government funded labs.

Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?

Mines and missiles use explosives, BATFE already regulate the use and ownership of explosives.

If people are going to try to turn this thread into another generic gun ownership thread instead of a thread about the recent 9th circuit ruling it's probably going to get locked by the mods.

It would be a gakky militia without them!

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.

The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.

My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.

I think it's very rare to find a reasonable person who thinks any our our rights are, or should be, wholly unfettered. A first amendment that covered fighting words, death threats, and fraud isn't conducive to a workable society any more than a wholly unfettered second amendment.

Also, as a technical note, a nuclear weapon would not be covered by the second amendment because it's not a "bearable arm" in the conventional sense. You have no right whatsoever to own bombs, explosives, MANPADS, and suchlike under the 2nd amendment, and the National Firearms Act (among others) lawfully preclude private ownership of those devices.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?

Mines and missiles use explosives, BATFE already regulate the use and ownership of explosives.

If people are going to try to turn this thread into another generic gun ownership thread instead of a thread about the recent 9th circuit ruling it's probably going to get locked by the mods.

So if the firing mechanisms of firearms, but not the gun itself, we're to become restricted that wouldn't be an infringement of the right to bear arms? Explosives or no, it's clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.

Further, the comparison is on-topic since it illustrates the fact that there already are a bunch of regulations in place on what type of weapon you are and aren't allowed to own and what you're allowed to do with it. The argument that "it's unconstitutional!" hinges one one particular reading of the constitution while refusing to entertain the notion that both sides have a point.

EDIT: Isn't the "MANP" in MANPADS short for man-portable? How is that not a bearable weapon?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Take the example of anti-personnel mines then (assuming they are illegal, otherwise WHAT?!). Is it reasonable to let private individuals own mines, or pipe bombs, or an anti-ship missile?

Such weapons are legal, provided you go through the requisite ATF channels. Explosives have their own sets of laws that I'm not entirely familiar with, however it is perfectly legal to own things like howitzers or anti tank guns. There's a fully functional and privately owned PAK40 in Utah, and right now on Gunbroker there is a 37mm anti tank gun for sale if you have 55k burning a hole in your pocket and your ok with the $200 NFA transfer tax and probably 6 month wait period for them to issue the tax stamp.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ouze, you're not allowed to walk around with nuclear weapons, even though the sprit of the 2nd technically allows this. You and American society seem happy with this, therefore, you've accepted a compromise on your second amendment rights.

The 1st amendment allows you to say what you want. Court rules that you can't shout FIRE in a cinema. American society agrees with this. Another compromise accepted.

My point is this: American society has been accepting these common sense compromises since Day 1 of the USA's existence, but some people seem to think that the 2nd is unique and holy, as if it were above all this.

I think it's very rare to find a reasonable person who thinks any our our rights are, or should be, wholly unfettered. A first amendment that covered fighting words, death threats, and fraud isn't conducive to a workable society any more than a wholly unfettered second amendment.

Also, as a technical note, a nuclear weapon would not be covered by the second amendment because it's not a "bearable arm" in the conventional sense. You have no right whatsoever to own bombs, explosives, MANPADS, and suchlike under the 2nd amendment, and the National Firearms Act (among others) lawfully preclude private ownership of those devices.

Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...

Could it be that common sense and compromise have taken root over the years?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So if the firing mechanisms of firearms, but not the gun itself, we're to become restricted that wouldn't be an infringement of the right to bear arms? Explosives or no, it's clearly an infringement on the right to bear arms.

It's not the firing mechanism that makes it covered by the second amendment, because there was a ruling that it covered protect stun guns, tasers, and pepper spray. The modern (current, recent) interpretation is that it has to be a "bearable arm" that isn't "dangerous per se at common law and unusual”.

Delays by the Authorities to attain a permit to purchase a hand gun in NJ are both unlawful and unConstitutional.

I'd love to get that changed, but people have been working on that for years. Getting a CCW is virtually impossible in this State.

I'd love to hear what SCOTUS has to say about it, but they won't answer back.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Ouze, there's no mention of the National Fire Arms act in the bill of rights or in the original constitution...

There is, though. Look under the "necessary and proper" clause.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Again, the nuclear weapon thing is kinda off base. Such weapons are beyond the ability of private citizens to produce and procure, the expense, danger, and knowledgebase required for these weapons inherently makes them weapons of the state, not the citizen.

Likewise, as far as I can tell there is no explicit law forbidding the ownership of a nuclear weapon, rather, the materials used are highly controlled because even aside from making nuclear bombs they typically are extremely dangerous simply to be even near, and their production so resource intensive that the only sources of them would be either governmental or government funded labs.

Let's dial down the nuclear weapons talk. Ouze mentioned the NFA, which kinda supports what I'm saying: gun controls are an evolving thing in America, and this California ruling is no different.

Mdlbuildr wrote:
Delays by the Authorities to attain a permit to purchase a hand gun in NJ are both unlawful and unConstitutional.

I'd love to get that changed, but people have been working on that for years. Getting a CCW is virtually impossible in this State.

I'd love to hear what SCOTUS has to say about it, but they won't answer back.

Another reason to move to Texas!

So all we have to do is redefine what "the right to bear arms" means and then make sure it isn't being infringed upon, and it'll still be constitutional? Yay!

That was kinda my point I thought...that nuclear bombs and such weren't really a good talking point.