Second Amendment
First, more movie reviews! Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film For Theaters. Aqua Teen Hunger Force is a strange show that is part of the "Adult Swim" block shown on Cartoon Network. If you like the stuff that the William's Street people come up with, you will probably get a few laughs out of the movie. If you have never seen it before - you will not get this movie at all.
Today I should get two more movies from Netflix. The Constant Gardner and Hotel Rwanda. The Constant Gardner is the reason I got Netflix in the first place. I rented this movie from the video store, and never got around to watching it. So I kept it for t he full 5 days. On the 6th day the late fee was equal to another 5 days rent. So I kept it. For three weeks. And I never did watch it.
Now for the main post.
Due to current events, once again the Second Amendment is in the news. Seems to happen a lot. Anyway, what exactly is the deal with it?
I do not think that there is a Constitutional right to private gun ownership. Really. Even the NRA knows this. Here is a link to the NRA store and the "2nd Amendment T-Shirt". The shirt reads "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Now the Second Amendment is only one sentence, so why use the dots? Why shorten it? Because the part about "a well regulated militia" is not something that the NRA wants to talk about. They would rather those words not be there - but they ARE there. And they can not simply be ignored. "The people" is a collective term. Notice how the First Amendment only contains the phrase "the people" when talking about the right to assemble. A single person can not "assemble" anywhere. One person in the park is just one person in the park. So the right of "the people" to assemble means form a group. Collective. There are other examples too. Like the 4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...".
Persons. As in more than one person. And so on.
Also, there have already been many court decisions on the subject. Lower court, appeals courts, and even the Supreme Court.
For example - if I have an unlimited "right" to own guns, why do I need a permit to carry one? I do not need a permit to speak. I do not need a permit to write a letter to the newspaper. I do not need a permit to obtain the due process of law. I do not need a permit to hire a lawyer, or a permit preventing the cops from raiding my home without probable cause. I do not need a permit to attend whatever church I want to attend. And so on.
But I need a permit to pack heat. And FL has fairly "liberal" gun laws - meaning not very strict. Hell almost anyone can get a gun here, and only machine guns are restricted. But with the proper permit I can get a machine gun.
So what is up with this permit shit? If the Constitution says I have the right to keep and bear arms, how can the State "limit" this by requiring a permit? Why does the Supreme Court not declare this Unconstitutional?
Because it is Constitutional. States CAN restrict guns. Just about all of them do.
And what about ex felons? When a felon gets out of jail they have all of their Constitutional rights restored. Well all except the right to keep and bear arms and vote. But FL is considering allowing ex felons to vote (as they should, it is supposed to be a right guaranteed to ALL Americans, not just some). And when ex felons are allowed to vote, should they also get back their "right" to own guns? I mean, it is in the Constitution right? Felons have the right to free speech and religion and stuff. They even get the full due process of law. They get fair and speedy trials, have the right to a defense attorney (private or public) and so on. Because all that stuff is clearly intended to apply to everyone in the Constitution.
But nobody, not even the NRA, is suggesting that ex felons should be allowed to own guns.
It seems to me that if the Second Amendment really gave individuals unlimited rights to own and bear guns, there would be no permits. All states would have to allow concealed carry. No types of guns would be restricted. Every kind of ammo would be legal. And any attempt to pass laws would be struck down by the Supreme Court. And yet even in Texas you have to get a permit to carry. Only that liberal Vermont allows concealed carry with no permit. You do not hear the NRA blasting Texas for violating "the people's" rights.
Labels: ATHF, guns, Netflix, second amendment
posted by The Lazy Iguana @ 00:13
17 Comments:
If the "right" to bear arms is limited to the military, it's not really a right.
Yeah, "a gun under every bed and in every pickup" is the motto here in Texas. Most probably do not have permits.
so, you're saying they are making that sentence singular and it was meant plural as in the "military"? Is that what militia means? I never thought of it that way, although I think people should be allowed to arm themselves because no matter how you slice it, the dangerous people will always get ahold of the weapons, thats why they are dangerous
Excellent blog today.
I'm always amazed at how narrow some interpretations of the constitution are but when it comes to this, it is so broad. Although I am not in favor of banning "guns", I would be in favor of banning handguns and assault rifles to all but the military.
Fuzz - This seems to be the case. The term "well regulated militia" does not mean a bunch of guys with guns running around in the woods.
Glenda - anyone packing heat in Texas without a permit is a felon. Plain and simple. Yet you do not hear the NRA complaining about the "liberals" in Texas infringing on the "right" to bear arms.
Ba Doozie - "Militia" does not mean "a random assortment of people". "Well regulated" does not mean "lets go off into the woods with beer and guns". This is what I am saying. I do not believe the "right" to keep guns is guaranteed in the Constitution, I think it is a provisional right granted to us by States.
Ed - I do not see why a State can not ban any kind of gun. California did, and the Supreme Court did not overturn it.
Actionbell - I do not think it will happen either. More on why this is later.
The Lazy,
I'm an old guy and I have never used a gun outside of the military and hunting. Bad people will use guns to do bad things. I'm pretty good at spotting bad people.
Lazy,
Under the Second Amendment, I can hypothetically, sling an AK over my shoulder, have no concealed weapons permit, and walk through downtown P-town...legally.
It's the 'concealed' carry, not the 'carry' that states are concerned about and requiring permits. I'm for that. Although, someone popping Zoloft or a person institutionalized within a certain time frame can't pilot an aircraft but can walk into a gun store and purchase a gun, and carry concealed legally with a permit.
You stated that "The right of the people to be secure in their persons...".
If you have read any other document dating in that time, which I gather you well have, you can see that sentence as you have described (a singlular collective) would have stated, "people to be secure in it's person". It did not, but stated 'people (plural) to be secure in their (individual ownership) persons' (many individuals)
I do agree with your original assessment that indeed when the Constitution was written, it was intended for militia. Due to the fact that every household had firearms and viewed a gun as more as a given, a staple even. I don't think we are going to go "Red Dawn" anytime soon, but if the second amendment protects my right to own one, as interpreted by a judge, then I'm happy.
Oregon is far more strict than WA (WA CWP's are good for 6 years) but I didn't know that gun laws were so lax in VA, or FL for that matter. I think it should be up to the individual state, rather than Federally mandated, don't you?
Emma - exactly. And by the way, open carry is illegal in Florida. So you can not sling an AK over your back and walk downtown. Some states, like Arizona, allow open carry but not concealed carry.
Compare this to any other Constitutional right. They do not vary from state to state. The same Constitutional rights I have in Florida apply to me in Texas, Arizona, Alaska, Hawaii, Maine, Kansas, Mississippi, and so on.
But gun laws DO vary from state to state. What is OK in Florida may or may not be ok in some other state. My Florida permit might be valid in another state, or it might not be.
Therefore the only conclusion I can reach is that the "right" to own a gun is granted by States, NOT the Constitution. And by virtue that the laws and regulations are NOT uniform across all 50 States, federal courts have upheld that the States do have the power to regulate gun ownership.
In NC, if my memory serves me, there is a law on the books (an old law of course) refering to the "Militia" as all males over 18 and under 45 years of age, excluding preachers.
The wide variations from one area to another are an indication of how confused we are on this. I still say that confining this "right" to the military and police, esentialy eliminates it.
Fuzz - Then what of the NC National Guard? "Well regulated" means just that. Well regulated. It is fine to say the militia is all males 18 - 45 years of age, but this excludes women and preachers. So do they have the "right" to keep and bear arms? Anyhow, the well regulated thing can not just be ignored. I would think that at the least it means the "militia" needs some modern military training.
Therefore I conclude that the "right" to have guns is granted by individual States, not the Constitution.
Would the "militia" be permited to keep thier own guns ? Or would they be locked in the arms room.
There have always been armories, going back as far in US history as you care to go.
In Florida, the National Guard keeps their issue weapons in an armory. I think this is also SOP for the other States.
good point.
Time, place and manner restrictions can be placed on the exercise of a constitutional right. Example would be needing a permit to have a protest march.
"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."
I think you are right. "the right to keep and bear arms" has a different meaning taken in context of the entire sentence.
In fact, "the right to keep and bear arms" only exists in terms of membership in a militia, or the modern equivalent.
The need to get a permit for a march is for public safety reasons. Public safety agencies should be aware in advance if 10,000 (for example) are going to show up someplace. What if there are medical emergencies? Will there be enough EMS on hand? And so on.
when these permits are denied, groups usually go to the courts and the courts rule in favor of them.
I am just trying to take an objective look at this. The thoughts in the two posts are things I have come up with over time.
I think that allowing concealed carry without permit is a bit insane. But I don't think that the Virgina Tech gunman was terribly worried about obtaining a permit.
I just hate that it's as easy as it is for just anybody to obtain a gun.
The Constant Gardner and Hotel Rwanda were great films, and there's a reason they both garnered academy nominations. You should watch them both.
I've been thinking about the Second Amendment and gun control lately being here in VA. It comes down to this for me. I don't like guns and I wish they didn't exist. But they're not the single weapons that can inflict injury and death. And to lean a little to my right in this case, I do believe that guns don't kill, people with guns kill.
CM - Vermont does not seem to have a problem with their gun law. Of course the population density of the state is not very high, and there are a higher than average percentage of affluent people living there. The V. Tech shooter should not have been able to get a gun - period. His court ordered treatment should have turned up in the "instant" background check. The State of Virginia has to answer for the fact that the instant background checks clearly are not working.
Sar - How about guns allow people to kill. Really they do. A handgun is an easy way to kill someone. Of course a shotgun is easier but a shotgun is less portable. I do not think that it is going to be possible to ban all handguns outright - there are too many illegal ones floating out there already and people should be able to defend themselves in their homes. But there should be some safety steps in the process.
Post a Comment
<< Home