Second Amendment Part 2

Emma made an excellent comment that clarifies my point on this subject. Blocks in quotes are from the comment.

"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."

Actually - you can't. This is my point. Under any other Amendment I have the same rights no matter where in the 50 States I go. I have the same freedom of speech in Florida that I would have in Mississippi or Washington DC. So therefore, under the Second Amendment my rights from state to state SHOULD be the same. But they are not. In Florida, open carry is illegal. Of course if you are engaged in the act of hunting then you can open carry - but you all know what I mean. I can not strap an AK to my back and take a leisurely stroll in Downtown Miami. You may be able to do this in your state, but not in Florida. Likewise, open carry is outlawed in many other states. And some cities have successfully implemented gun restrictions that go beyond what State law says.

"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."

Again, it depends on the State. Like I said, some major cities have severely restricted gun ownership. And the States have not done anything about it. Nor have courts, except to uphold the city laws. There may even be States where there are no concealed permits and open carry is also banned. This would pretty much mean you can't carry. Guns have to be transported in the truck of a car, unloaded. You can own them, but the idea of a shootout on the street to defend yourself is illegal. And once again, courts have not overturned these laws.

For many years Washington DC banned all gun ownership. That was overturned, but I do not really understand the reasoning behind that. Just looking at the second half of the Second Amendment, it says "..... to keep and bear arms". Bear means carry. Have on hand. So if a State or a city says "no concealed weapons, no open carry" that is in effect "infringing" on my "right to bear arms". If it is OK to infringe on my "right to bear arms" then what is the big deal about my "right to keep arms"? How am I supposed to fight government tyranny if I can not patrol the streets of Washington DC with a fully automatic AK and a 100 round drum?

Anyhow the original point remains. Constitutional rights are uniform across the entire United States. No matter where in the USA you go, you have the same Constitutional rights. This is the whole point in the Amendments. My First Amendment rights do not change from State to State. Nor do my 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or any other Constitutional Rights. And my 2nd Amendment "rights" do not vary either. They are uniform across the land. States have the right to form well organized militias no matter what State I go to.

The simple fact that gun laws are not uniform means that they are NOT protected by the Constitution. They are provisional rights, granted by State Law. My "right" to have guns is not protected by the Constitution, it is however protected by State Law. My "right" to bear arms is likewise limited. I have a permit for Florida. Some other States will accept the Florida permit as valid in their State - but some do not. States without concealed carry will not accept my permit. Other states with concealed carry laws may not accept my Florida permit.

But it is clear to me that the Constitution does not apply here. For if it did, what I can do in Alaska I could do in Washington DC. What I can do in Miami I could do in Los Angeles.

Anyway, it really does not matter too much. The majority of the population supports stricter gun control laws. So why are they not on the books? It has nothing to do with the Second Amendment - I have a feeling that if it came down to it the Supreme Court would side with gun control. They already have really - even if it is by inaction (refusing to hear cases).

The deal here is that those who support gun control do not really "vote the issue". The other side DOES vote the issue. Because of this, a politician who says "I will ban guns" stands little chance of getting elected. Those who agree with the statement will not get worked up into a frenzy about it. They will view other issues as more important. But the other side WILL get worked up into a frenzy.

In other words, you have little to gain by pushing for gun control. It is a risk, even if the majority supports it. Little progress in gun control will be made, no matter WHAT happens.

My personal belief is that it is too late. There are too many guns out there already. The NRA was incorporated in 1871. At that time handguns were still large revolvers, many of which were still black powder shooters (SLOW to load). Cartridge rifles and revolvers were around, but they cost more. Some very primitive and unreliable auto loaders were being developed, but they were not in common use. The common man was likely to have a "yellow boy" lever action rifle, or a Colt revolver. This was the time to restrict guns. By now these guns would be well over 100 years old, and in questionable shooting condition. The guns in good condition would be worth a lot of money (they are now).

But now these guns are considered primitive. There were no 30 round magazines. There were no auto loaders. Hell, I do not even think there were smokeless cartridges. I think in the 1870s the thing was black powder cartridges. Black powder is for the most part lower power than smokeless. It burns slower and can not build up the pressure that smokeless powder can. And there were not produced in the numbers that guns are produced in today.

So even if there is a total national gun ban, for the next 50 or so years it would be a problem. Until the guns on the black market were either all confiscated OR in such bad condition that they fail to function AND all the ammo and ammo supplies were used up (which is not possible, black powder is somewhat easy to make) violent criminals who were determined enough to do so could get a gun. It may have prevented the V. Tech shooting however, as the loner gunman probably did not have any connections. You have to have friends to have connections.

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.