Utah Guns Forum banner
1 - 3 of 3 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I am going to just post this for everyone to peruse. No comentary at this time as it is late:

You could almost hear a collective gasp in some quarters last week when the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to take a case that goes to the heart of the national debate over gun control. This is a rare chance for the court to plow nearly fresh ground on a constitutional issue, given that the last ruling on the subject was 68 years ago.

At issue is Washington, D.C.'s total ban on handgun ownership, which has been in place since 1976. A federal appeals court ruled that the ban goes too far, violating the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Gun-control advocates worry that this ruling, if upheld, would interfere with gun laws nationwide.

But despite all the worries about such a politically divisive issue coming during an election year (the ruling is expected some time next June), this decision ought to be a fairly simple and obvious one. Set aside for a moment the absolute failure of the ban to affect crime rates in the District of Columbia â€" the year it went into effect there were 135 firearm-related homicides, which is the exact same number as in 2006, according to the Washington Post. A total ban on private gun ownership is an obvious violation of the Second Amendment.

Story continues below
Lest our readers be confused, we have at various times endorsed limits on guns in Utah. We have supported bans at college campuses, in churches and in schools. Those are reasonable restrictions in the best interests of an orderly society. So is a concealed-weapons law that requires people to demonstrate proficiency with a gun. So are restrictions on particularly powerful types of firearms.

But there can be no reasonable reading of history, and particularly of the Founding Fathers' discussions concerning the Bill of Rights, that supports a total ban on common weapons.

The Second Amendment is probably the most poorly worded of all amendments. It says, "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." For years now, one side has claimed the amendment applies only to a state's right to arm a militia, while the other side has focused on the "right of the people." In fact, both are right.

Plenty of evidence exists to show the founders were worried about four particular things when drafting the amendment. They wanted to place the military under civilian control, they wanted states to maintain militias as a check on federal power, they did not want a standing, professional army during peace time, and, yes, they wanted individuals to have the right to bear arms. Several state bills of rights, and suggestions given for drafting the Second Amendment, incorporated these ideas separately. The final product was a rather awkward way of putting them all together.

But there can be no confusion on the intent.

Washington's lawyers will argue that the ban does not affect all types of weapons. People still may own rifles and shotguns, if kept locked away. But even the last court ruling, in 1939, said weapons "in common use" should be protected. No one could reasonably argue that handguns are not in common use in Washington.

In fact they are everywhere. Given the evidence, it's amazing anyone would try to defend a ban that has been utterly ineffective. Firearms, as even some early American leaders said, can be restricted in limited ways because of a danger to public injury. But a total ban on common weapons clearly goes too far.
 
G

·
I have a few problems with this article.

We have supported bans at college campuses, in churches and in schools.
But there can be no confusion on the intent.
Clearly there can be some confusion as to the intent. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't they get.

Private churches, schools, and colleges can ban anything they like and so they should. On the other hand public property does and should fall under the full weight of the constitution.

So is a concealed-weapons law that requires people to demonstrate proficiency with a gun. So are restrictions on particularly powerful types of firearms.
While I would like to see everyone demonstrate a proficiency with arms I nor anyone else has a right to demand it. Suggesting that we have that right suggests that carrying a concealed firearm is a privilege not a right.

What is a particularly powerful firearm? Is it a machine gun, a 50 caliber that can shoot down airliners from half a continent away, or perhaps a crew served weapon like artillery? I have read a few posts here discussing what we as citizens should not be allowed to own and what we shouldn’t. My take on this, derived directly from the second amendment, is: if the army has it I should be able to have it too. My one reservation would be chemical, biological, and nuclear. Fortunately all three can be regulated by other, legal, means. Maybe I should revise my stance to be: if the army has it and would be willing to use it against me or my fellow citizens on US soil I should be allowed to have it. Unfortunately there is no way to judge what the army would be willing to use as those decisions are made by men, men who’s minds cannot be known.

Plenty of evidence exists to show the founders were worried about four particular things when drafting the amendment. They wanted to place the military under civilian control, they wanted states to maintain militias as a check on federal power, they did not want a standing, professional army during peace time, and, yes, they wanted individuals to have the right to bear arms. Several state bills of rights, and suggestions given for drafting the Second Amendment, incorporated these ideas separately. The final product was a rather awkward way of putting them all together.
Wrong; stupidly, ridiculously, wrong.
Only one idea and right is guaranteed by the second amendment. The constitution and bill of rights are not a jumble of ideas haphazardly thrown together in a long rambling paragraph (in example, the way I write). There is one right or logical grouping of rights (search and seizure in example) per amendment.

The disposition of the military was addressed in the constitution.

Where does the federal constitution address state militias and their role? Of course state militias are not addressed in the bill of rights; its sole function was to affirm those individual rights already assumed by the constitution and had nothing to say about roles or collective (state or federal powers) unless it was restricting them to guarantee individual rights.

As I said in a post in this topic http://www.utahconcealedcarry.com/f...&start=0&sid=26f9bfdc745acc6e04a7ea223fbe4794
If the state needs an army to ensure the security of the state the people must be armed as a means to oppose the army should it be used against the people by a tyrannical government.

That is it, nothing more nothing less. Any other interpretation is a lie and only furthers the aims of lairs.


Firearms, as even some early American leaders said, can be restricted in limited ways because of a danger to public injury.
This line, deliberate or not, suggests that there was a gaggle of "early American leaders" who were in favor of gun control. I doubt that very much; if that is the case I would like to know who where these leaders and what is their credential to the claim the status leader. If poorly crafted (by design or not) almost anything can be misunderstood.

If I were to say "If, despite the cost of doing so, if you ban firearms some lives will be saved". one could make the argument: I am saying that banning firearms would result in a net yield of live saved but would be a financial burden to do so. One could also argue: I am saying there are some people who may live but countless others may die, along with our freedom. My intent was to say the latter; as anyone, taking the whole of all that I have said and written into account, would easily recognize.
This happens to our founding fathers every day.

Firearms, as even some early American leaders said, can be restricted in limited ways because of a danger to public injury.
is the sort of sentence I was describing above.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,195 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Thanks Eutakae, disected and torn apart better than I could have done.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top