RKBA and self defense

[bdickens]

I think you understand the point I'm trying to make. Quit quibbling over nonsense. Actually, this whole thread is nonsense and I regret that I lowered myself to this level .

Once again:

REG:
What's the point?
FRANCIS:
What?
REG:
What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS:
It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG:
Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm

[srothstein]

I understand your point and I strongly disagree with it. Your analogy to the scene is faulty because one is physically impossible while the other is possible but highly unlikely due to other obstacles.

Let me put it this way. I have to defend your rights to defend my own. This is true whether I like the person or not, and whether I liek the right or not. In this case, I am defending Bill Gates' rights since he can afford it. In so doing, I am defending my own. I am doing so by saying that the Second has no limitation on the type of weapon permitted.

Now, we can agree to disagree on that statement, which is where we appear to be. You appear to feel that the type of weapon can be limited and I do not.

Are there other restrictions that might be reasonable? The only one I can think of is the restriction on carrying a weapon inside a jail. I am not 100% convinced this is allowed by the 2A, but I am fairly sure it would pass as a reasonable restriction. I have not yet come up with any other GOVERNMENTAL restrictions I find acceptable, reasonable, or Constitutional.

[anygunanywhere]

I have not yet come up with any other GOVERNMENTAL restrictions I find acceptable, reasonable, or Constitutional.

Now we are finally getting down to what I refer to as common ground.

I can agree on the jail thing too unless I was employed by TDC.

Anygunanywhere

[pt145ss]

Are there other restrictions that might be reasonable? The only one I can think of is the restriction on carrying a weapon inside a jail. I am not 100% convinced this is allowed by the 2A, but I am fairly sure it would pass as a reasonable restriction. I have not yet come up with any other GOVERNMENTAL restrictions I find acceptable, reasonable, or Constitutional.

So let me see if I understand your point of view. 2a is a warning for the “government� to not make legislature that infringes on the RKBA. I can almost agree on this. I do have a question though, you said this is up to and including nukes, but what about weapons that are not military in nature? For example, the “sawed off� shotgun, as it is not (at least not to my knowledge) commonly used by the military. Does 2a only limit the government from making legislature against weapons in common use by the military? I’m referring to the one SCOTUS ruling way back. Also, what about felons and children?

Also, you provided an example, not sure if it was this post or another, but you basically said that you thought it was unconstitutional for the government to ban firearms on an airline. I assume this is because it was a restriction by the government. Now let’s say the government did not ban it but the airline themselves said, we own this plane and we do not want your guns on it…is that acceptable because it is a private business and the airplane is not owned by the government?

[srothstein]

You basically have my points down. I do not see the Second as limited to just military weapons, as any weapon can be used by a militia. The Miller case did NOT say the weapon ahd to be used by a milita, BTW. It said that in the absence of proof of that, there was not enough to overturn the decision and remanded for further consideration. it should have been dismissed as moot at that point or not heard since the defense was not present, but such is life.

On the airline, I agree it is private property and the airline can restrict. just as I can restrict in my house. My complaint is the government cannot make the rule or the search. If the airline said everyone had to be strip searched and could have nothing on them that was not cloth while in flight, it would be legal. I doubt they would get many customers, but that is the way the free market works.

[pt145ss]

You basically have my points down. I do not see the Second as limited to just military weapons, as any weapon can be used by a militia. The Miller case did NOT say the weapon ahd to be used by a milita, BTW. It said that in the absence of proof of that, there was not enough to overturn the decision and remanded for further consideration. it should have been dismissed as moot at that point or not heard since the defense was not present, but such is life.

On the airline, I agree it is private property and the airline can restrict. just as I can restrict in my house. My complaint is the government cannot make the rule or the search. If the airline said everyone had to be strip searched and could have nothing on them that was not cloth while in flight, it would be legal. I doubt they would get many customers, but that is the way the free market works.

How about felons, children, the mental defectives?

[frankie_the_yankee]

I have not yet come up with any other GOVERNMENTAL restrictions I find acceptable, reasonable, or Constitutional.

Now we are finally getting down to what I refer to as common ground.

I can agree on the jail thing too unless I was employed by TDC.

Anygunanywhere

So in other words, Anygun, if you think it is a reasonable restriction, it is. But if I think it is a reasonable restriction, and you don't, it isn't. (And I'm on the ground rolling around belly up hoping the government doesn't make a criminal out of me with a stroke of a pen.)

That seems like a legal "principle" that we can all hang our hats on, hey?

Now just explain to me why we need courts to interpret the law as long as we have people who are willing to appoint themselves to do it for us.

And how does one appoint one's self as a "law interpreter" or a "definer of reasonableness"? It sort of sounds like fun. I'd like to do it myself once in a while, if I could somehow get into the Club.

But then, when happens if two or more people appoint themselves as official "definers of reasonableness" and in spite of their best honest efforts, they arrive at different evaluations of what is reasonable and what is not? What do we do then? Who do we turn to for a definitive answer?

And who appoints them?

[frankie_the_yankee]

On the airline, I agree it is private property and the airline can restrict. just as I can restrict in my house. My complaint is the government cannot make the rule or the search.

Steve, the problem is that there is not a shred of constitutional law or case law that supports this position. The government restrictions have been in place since the early 70's. I don't know that they have ever been challenged. But if they have been, it is evident that no such challenge has been effective.

Legally, it's a conflict between the government's Commerce Clause powers and the people's 2A rights. In this case, the Commerce Clause clearly overrides.

It is also evident that the restrictions themselves have been highly effective. The late 60's to early 70's saw hundreds of hijackings. After guns were banned and passenger screening was implemented, hijackings dropped to a trickle.

So it's clear that in any foreseeable court action, the test of reasonableness would be met, even under the strictest standards of judicial scrutiny.

[srothstein]

Frankie,

There is one big difference between the pre-2001 restrictions and now, along with a bunch of smaller differences. The big one is that the airline no longer has any say in it, including the search. Prior to the existence of the TSA (created as part of homeland security) all of the searches were done by airline employed or contracted personnel. Now they are done by government employees.

But, the big problem is that I don't think anyone has ever fought the restrictions. Most of the public accepts them, regardless of what I think. I may be right or wrong, but I am definitely in the minority. Not nearly as small a minority as it used to be, given the number of people who refuse to fly just to avoid the security searches now. I think I have flown twice since 2001, when I used to fly about once every three months before then. It just wasn't enough of a pain to fight through court.

pt145ss

I don't see any reason, moral justification, or legal principle to deprive felons of their rights. If they are safe to be out of jail (and completed probation or parole) then all rights should be restored automatically. I honestly cannot find anything in the Constitution that excludes felons.

I can see some moral reasons to exclude mental defectives and children, but I really cannot find too much legal authority for it either. If you allow it, you then have to decide what is a mental defective. Which disorders cause them to lose rights?

You get the same quagmire when you exclude children. What is a juvenile? How do you make a difference between a 15 year old genius who has been on his own for two years compared to the 25 year old spoiled rich kid who still lives with his parents and has not worked a day in his life? It was not too long ago (well, maybe long enough) that the definition of a child or adult was a self declaration. If he was big enough to do a man's work, and took responsibility for himself, he strapped a pistol on and was treated as a man. How many 14 or 15 year olds fought in World War II? They may have lied about their age, but they were certainly adults and took adult responsibility. We also have the same problem now with handguns and alcoholic beverages. Why can a man buy a shotgun at 18 but not buy a pistol? Something in this makes no sense to me.

[frankie_the_yankee]

Frankie,

There is one big difference between the pre-2001 restrictions and now, along with a bunch of smaller differences. The big one is that the airline no longer has any say in it, including the search. Prior to the existence of the TSA (created as part of homeland security) all of the searches were done by airline employed or contracted personnel. Now they are done by government employees.

I really don't see the difference from a legal point of view. Even pre-2001, the searches and the gun ban was by federal regulation/mandate. It was not voluntary on the part of the airline. The feds used Commerce Clause powers to mandate the new rules and that was that.

But, the big problem is that I don't think anyone has ever fought the restrictions. Most of the public accepts them, regardless of what I think. I may be right or wrong, but I am definitely in the minority. Not nearly as small a minority as it used to be, given the number of people who refuse to fly just to avoid the security searches now. I think I have flown twice since 2001, when I used to fly about once every three months before then. It just wasn't enough of a pain to fight through court.

I think the reason for the public acceptance is because of the demonstrated effectiveness - i.e. the massive reduction in the number of hijackings since the rules were implemented. And this is also why any attempt at court action today would be a sure loser. At any level of scrutiny, the test of reasonableness will be met.

I don't see any reason, moral justification, or legal principle to deprive felons of their rights. If they are safe to be out of jail (and completed probation or parole) then all rights should be restored automatically. I honestly cannot find anything in the Constitution that excludes felons.

Neither can I in the body of the constitution itself. But in some of the Founders' writings they state that the government should not deprive "peaceable citizens" from having guns. So I'd say at least some of them may have intended to exclude violent felons.

Given recividism rates and the fact that we are not psychic, and do not want to execute every violent felon, one could argue that a practical element comes into play at some point.

I can see some moral reasons to exclude mental defectives and children, but I really cannot find too much legal authority for it either. If you allow it, you then have to decide what is a mental defective. Which disorders cause them to lose rights?

This is why we have laws and courts. Also, the Constitution clearly limits some rights to adults.

[anygunanywhere]

So in other words, Anygun, if you think it is a reasonable restriction, it is. But if I think it is a reasonable restriction, and you don't, it isn't. (And I'm on the ground rolling around belly up hoping the government doesn't make a criminal out of me with a stroke of a pen.)

That seems like a legal "principle" that we can all hang our hats on, hey?

My belief that the second amendment is absolute is a whole lot closer to where our RKBA ought to be than your belief in multiple reasonable restrictions. I started a thread awhile back looking for debate on reasonable restrictions but it wound up stuck on your terrorist on airline scenario when that is one that very few of us here would ever face.

Since my 2A right will forever be restricted, legislated, limited, monitored, recorded, or whatver the ruling class wants to do, I will acccept restrictions. I will accept legal principles. I will accept SCOTUS rulings as long as they are actually based on the constitution as it is written and as it is intended. I will accept legislation as long as it actually accomplishes something and in no way makes criminals out of the law abiding and in no way restricts access to any firearm.

Yes, Frankie. The above in bold is true. My definition of a restriction would in no way infringe on your RKBA, because you are a law abiding citizen. On the other hand, your reasonable restrictions, as stated here, do infringe on mine because I have to have a government issued permission card.

Now just explain to me why we need courts to interpret the law as long as we have people who are willing to appoint themselves to do it for us.

And how does one appoint one's self as a "law interpreter" or a "definer of reasonableness"? It sort of sounds like fun. I'd like to do it myself once in a while, if I could somehow get into the Club.

But then, when happens if two or more people appoint themselves as official "definers of reasonableness" and in spite of their best honest efforts, they arrive at different evaluations of what is reasonable and what is not? What do we do then? Who do we turn to for a definitive answer?

And who appoints them?

We have elected them and the elected have appointed them. The executive branch makes executive orders, the judicial branch mandates legislation and rules based on foreign law, and the legislative passes laws based on polls and personal beliefs and not what their constituents want.

Obviously you have not been paying attention to what the feds are doing because everything they do they deem reasonable and for our good.

Anygunanywhere

[KBCraig]

This is a fairly long debate already, but I'll add this about cannons: During both the American Revolution and War Between the States, privately owned artillery was in use.

It's entirely possible to own a working howitzer today, if you want to jump through the paperwork.

Finally, no 105mm howitzer ever cost anything approaching $1.5 million. When I took delivery of the first five M989 FIST-Vs in Europe, they were the most expensive vehicles in the battery. Fully equipped (not just the vehicle, but all the contents, including radios), they were about $1.2 million each. Our M109A3 155mm SP howitzers were less than half that, but I don't recall the exact amount.

[frankie_the_yankee]

My belief that the second amendment is absolute is a whole lot closer to where our RKBA ought to be than your belief in multiple reasonable restrictions.

You're assuming that you have some unique insight as to where our RBKA "ought to be".

Where did this insight come from? What makes it superior to that of another person who might have a different opinion?

I started a thread awhile back looking for debate on reasonable restrictions but it wound up stuck on your terrorist on airline scenario when that is one that very few of us here would ever face.

What happened is that I forced things in the direction of having to account for all of the possible consequences of having a lack of restrictions, not just the consequences that you liked or were convenient to your world view.

And the position you took was essentially that no restrictions were reasonable, which made me question why you bothered to start the thread. (It seemed pointless if all that was being sought was for 10 or 15 people to simply agree that no restrictions were reasonable. Not much of a debate.)

And it doesn't matter that the terrorist on the airliner scenario is "one that very few of us here would ever face". It was and is a fully predictable consequence of a "no restrictions" regime. So if one advocates no restrictions, one needs to deal with that and other inconvenient scenarios if one expects to be taken seriously.

Since my 2A right will forever be restricted, legislated, limited, monitored, recorded, or whatver the ruling class wants to do, I will acccept restrictions. I will accept legal principles. I will accept SCOTUS rulings as long as they are actually based on the constitution as it is written and as it is intended. I will accept legislation as long as it actually accomplishes something and in no way makes criminals out of the law abiding and in no way restricts access to any firearm.

Good.

Yes, Frankie. The above in bold is true. My definition of a restriction would in no way infringe on your RKBA, because you are a law abiding citizen. On the other hand, your reasonable restrictions, as stated here, do infringe on mine because I have to have a government issued permission card.

We have a different definition of "infringement".

Now just explain to me why we need courts to interpret the law as long as we have people who are willing to appoint themselves to do it for us.

And how does one appoint one's self as a "law interpreter" or a "definer of reasonableness"? It sort of sounds like fun. I'd like to do it myself once in a while, if I could somehow get into the Club.

But then, when happens if two or more people appoint themselves as official "definers of reasonableness" and in spite of their best honest efforts, they arrive at different evaluations of what is reasonable and what is not? What do we do then? Who do we turn to for a definitive answer?

And who appoints them?

We have elected them and the elected have appointed them. The executive branch makes executive orders, the judicial branch mandates legislation and rules based on foreign law, and the legislative passes laws based on polls and personal beliefs and not what their constituents want.

Obviously you have not been paying attention to what the feds are doing because everything they do they deem reasonable and for our good.

Anygunanywhere

I know how the courts work and how judges get appointed.

I asked the question because it seems like there are people who are quite prepared themselves to judge what is constitutional and what is not, what is an infringement and what is not, and what is a reasonable restriction and what is not.

Now we all can and do have opinions on such matters. But we must not lose sight of the fact that that's all that they are - opinions. And for that matter, that's all that SCOTUS judges have are opinions. As I have stated in the past, it's only when a majority of them share the same opinion does it rise to the status of a "ruling" and become part of "the law of the land".

So if you say something is reasonable, or if I say it is reasonable, all we are doing is stating our opinions. It is not within our purview to simply state that "X is correct and you're wrong."

Some people contributing to this thread believe that nukes should be unrestricted. I disagree. And I would ask them to explain to me how they would prevent/avoid our cities from being nuked one by one, from time to time, if someone (maybe juiced with a huge source of money by militant jihadists) could simply order up something out of the Pantex "catalog" whenever they wanted.

Either that, or maybe admit that banning nukes is a "reasonable restriction".

[57Coastie]

I don't see any reason, moral justification, or legal principle to deprive felons of their rights. If they are safe to be out of jail (and completed probation or parole) then all rights should be restored automatically. I honestly cannot find anything in the Constitution that excludes felons.

There is one way many felons are authorized to use firearms, Steve. Click here.

Jim

[srothstein]

That is an interesting point that I had not previously considered. For those who don't follow the link, he was referring to the waivers for felons to enter the Army.