NationStates Jolt Archive

I Agree... I live in Denmark. Too many people die because of the reckless gun laws in the US. They only promotes more fear... more guns... more death... more fear... AND WE HAVE A LOOP!?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)
You do not understand American crime. There are streets in the country where a white person has a poor chance of survival should they be foolish enough to try and drive down them at the wrong time. Should you die this way, the weapon used may or may not be a gun. And if it is, it most certainly isn't a legal one. The cities where this kind of stuff happens have the greatest restrictions on firearms. If you're interested there are a number of movies you can watch about "life on the street", some being more or less realistic. I would recomend the movie "Training Day".

That kind of country is USA I will then ask, then you need a gun to defend your self or get killed? In Sweden a country with 9 million people only a couple of houndred people get killed per year and in most cases the killer knows the victim. Also intersted fact that swedish police only have to fire around 30 shots a years and on average only kill around one people a year beacause there lifes is threathen. So maybee guns is not the real answer....

(sorry have no english speaking material to back it up, but you can look for your self or try to find another swed that will say the same thing)

Sweden has nine million citizens. The united States has over three hundered million citizens. let's round it down to 300 million for the sake of argument.
Figure then that Sweden has about 3% of the American numbers in population.
naturally, you're going to have a lower crime-rate in raw numbers. then again, Sweden has a lower crime-rate overall, but that can be answered by things like homogenous culture, level of individual prosperity, belief systems, even climate.

Now, consider this: In the U.S. most murders are committed by people the victim knows-often, by people the victim knows extremely well, or is even related to. Why? because Most murders are by people you know.
(WWW.FBI.Gov)

The American culture is neither homogenous (even within the same racial/ethnic groupings), nor is it what you might call "Well regulated". One of the fundamental prices of freedom, is the accptance of risk, and the acceptance of responsibility.

Firearms require both. First, you take a risk by purchasing one-many people here are very afraid of gun-owners, and some will tend to discriminate if they can get away with it-particularly in employment or academics, there is also the risk that Government may decide what you own is "illegal" or "Evil". Further, the legal purchase of a firearm creates a 'paper trail' via form 4473, plus whatever local regulations are attached. I have yet to see a beaurocracy that actually complies with regulations demanding that it NOT keep records of something-even when the law requires it. (The FBI has been keeping tabs on firearms purchases in violation of the law, with the excuse of maintaining "Statistical data". They're supposed to dispose of purchase-request info after doing the instant-check.)

There is also responsibility-and this is where you get the difference between being an adult, and being a child. If you are treated as an adult, you do not need someone looking over your shoulder, deciding what you can and can not own. A child requires constant supervision by a parental figure, lest he or she does something irresponsible and dangerous.

The fundamental attitude of Gun-Control types here in the U.S. (and laws enacted in Britain and Australia) is an attitude that Citizens are not responsible enough to make life-or-death decisions without supervision-that they're simply not adult enough to own the means to do violence.

Basically, it's an attitude that you find in history-much of the arguments in favour of Slavery in the United States were founded on such ideas-that the darkies simply could not be responsible for their own actions, that coloured folks were eternal children, and had to be protected by massa from themselves.

this also fueled early efforts at Gun-control in the post-reconstruction Southern states-keeping guns out of the hands of "Niggers" so that the white people could intimidate them.

Laws are a tricky thing-see, they only apply as long as the people who are supposed to enforce them, actually do. The Rights of a Citizen are based on how much responsibility that citizen is willing to accept. Those citizens willing to forfeit their rights for an offer of safety, rarely recieve either freedom, or safety, and never for long, as Government inevitably attacts corruption as it grows in power at home.

gun control is about PEOPLE Control-not so much the often misquoted statements about keeping governmental powers in check through armed citizens, as it is about keeping the demand for increased government power in check. Each freedom you give to your government, is one more you don't have for yourself. Tyranny in the modern context usually comes at the demand of the mob-dictators seize power by offering to take away the headaches and risks of personal decision making. Gun Ownership is a symbol of the refusal to surrender other rights-like free speech, the right to demand a warrant when you are being searched, the right not to be coerced into self-incrimination, the right to make decisions at Election time.

Criminals Fear an armed citizen-they'll find someone they believe to be less-well-protected if they even get a whiff that their prospective victim is packing. This is because the Criminal is, deep down, a bully. Bullies don't pick on kids who can fight back, or whom they believe can and will fight back.

Now, consider this: In the U.S. most murders are committed by people the victim knows-often, by people the victim knows extremely well, or is even related to. Why? because Most murders are by people you know.
(WWW.FBI.Gov)
A true but misleading statement. That includes aquaintences. So if you buy drugs from the guy down the street and then one of you kills the other, even if you had no other relationship by their definition of aquaintence you killed or were killed by someone you know.

You do not understand American crime. There are streets in the country where a white person has a poor chance of survival should they be foolish enough to try and drive down them at the wrong time. Should you die this way, the weapon used may or may not be a gun. And if it is, it most certainly isn't a legal one. The cities where this kind of stuff happens have the greatest restrictions on firearms. If you're interested there are a number of movies you can watch about "life on the street", some being more or less realistic. I would recomend the movie "Training Day".

-I smell FEAR! ;)

-Then i see a bad solution :rolleyes:

-And then people die... :(

Maybe you should solve the basic problems first? Use common sense...

Does anybody rearly think more guns is the solution?
Why are some people so deaperate, they use lethal force?

Maybe less guns means less people will die!? :eek:

Harry "the Bastard" (My native language is not English)
I go to bed now... need sleep... have a nice and safe night

Maybe you should solve the basic problems first? Use common sense...

Does anybody rearly think more guns is the solution?
Why are some people so deaperate, they use lethal force?

Maybe less guns means less people will die!? :eek:

Harry "the Bastard" (My native language is not English)
I go to bed now... need sleep... have a nice and safe night

That's a question, isn't it? Maybe less Alcohol=less deaths, but it didn't work very well in the 1920's.

More Responisble People=Fewer Deaths? That looks much more promising. Responsible people generally don't kick your door in in the middle of the night to rape your wife and steal your stuff, they usually don't go about hunting down, beating and raping their exes, Responsible people generally don't "Bust a Cap" in their competitor down the block who's selling the Crack for $19 a hit instead of $25 a hit.

Guns don't load, arm, and fire themselves at unarmed people, that requires a hand, and a heart, and a mind-guns have none of these traits. Nor are they mystical talismans that turn Kaspar Milquetoast into Homicidal Harry.

Guns are tools. That's all they are. In responsible hands (not necessarily the same thing as having-a-badge-hands, ask any of the victims of racist cops in the deep south between 1865 and 1967), guns are a protective device, or a means of harvesting meat for the table, even a fun means of friendly and professional competition. In Irresponsible hands, they can be used for Murder, Oppression, and Tyranny (Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge comes to mind, or Hitler's Germany, and Stalinist Russia...Noriega's Panama also qualifies, as does Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq.. but you really only have to look at Central Chicago, Washington D.C., and New York city to see it-tyranny imposed by the Gangs on one side, and the Government on the other, along with murder aplenty for all.)

alright who is the retarded, gay,democratic, pussy who came up with this :headbang: cause who really gives a shit about someone who thinks guns are evil because there are many other weapons that are used to kill people and besides even though they are deadly weapons there have been many lives that have been saved by them in warfare and in everyday life.

Explosive']alright who is the retarded, gay,democratic, pussy who came up with this :headbang: cause who really gives a shit about someone who thinks guns are evil because there are many other weapons that are used to kill people and besides even though they are deadly weapons there have been many lives that have been saved by them in warfare and in everyday life.
honey bunny, you are providing one of the strongest arguments in FAVOR of gun control...your poorly-expressed, homophobic, ignorantly partisan, and slightly batty-sounding post provides yet another example of a person who should never be allowed to own a dangerous weapon.

hell, after reading your post i am starting to support banning all sharp objects, just to be on the safe side...

There appear to be a couple of minor points in the Bible you missed:

Thou shalt not kill.

Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


You do realize that when Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek it was meant to be deaming to the person doing the slapping right? In Jesus's life time those in power would smack their servants and those in lower ranks of society by back handing them. By giving said idiot the other cheek you forced him to smack you open palm and made you his equal. It was meant to demean the elitist and make man equal which we all are in the eyes of god.

<snip>



Did you mean this whole second amendment?

"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."

That is all there is to it, not sure what second part you were referring too, must be a special appeasers guide to the Constitution that we are not aware of.

1) you seem to be under the impression that our military is organized enough to do that sort of thing.

2) you also seem to believe that we could actually do anything about it if they actually did. can your hunting rifle take on an apache? that's what i thought


[edit] i find lord zulu's position tolerable, if only for the need to acclimate people to the idea that they do not need to kill things all the time


Know this was posted a while back, but...

http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw030325_1_n.shtml

Seems like small arms are taking down enough helicopters in iraq... I wouldnt be surprised if a few guys with guns in 7.62x51mm took down helicopters here in america.

I just thought of something else for our appeasers here.

Tell me what happened in Germany during WWII, what right did Hilter take away from the citizens?

I will be surprised if any of the appeasers get this one

(Disclaimer: I am a gun owner. I keep my guns licensed and registered, I have trigger locks on all of them (I don't even have kids), and practice weekly to remain skilled.)

Here's how I see it:

1. Guns, rifles, pistols, whatever; they are not evil. They are tools, and like all tools, can be used for good and bad purposes. A knife can be used to slash and kill, a knife can be used to slice a turkey at a homeless shelter. A belt can be used to hold your trousers up, or it can be used to whip a toddler until he bleeds. Two simple examples. A gun can do the same. It can be used to protect law-abiding citizens from danger and chaos, or it can be used to create danger and chaos. All of these examples have one thing in common, the idea that the item can be used. This is an important realization, as my entire argument is based on it. To put it simply, it is the ideas pulling the trigger that are dangerous. These are not necessarily ideas of anarchy or righteousness. All too often it is fear, idolatry, and, deep-down, ignorance that are the culprits.

Fear: The guiding perception of those who believe that guns are a danger to society. Guns are not inherently dangerous to society. They are dangerous, but so are many vital tools, such as the deadly car. To ban them is to ignore the great deal of evidence that the great majority of gun owners are responsible and careful, and do not pose a threat to society.

Idolatry: On the flipside, too many gun owners treat guns as if God Himself brought them down from heaven, an eternal safeguard against authoritarianism and anarchy. This is, in a word, bullshit. Guns are not good, and they are just as happy to be fired by Hitler as by Churchill.

Ignorance: Why the fear and idolatry? Because few people understand the true nature of the gun. It is a concentration of lethal power, and, as any good Spiderman fan knows, with great power comes great responsibility. In my opinion, the responsibility falls on all.

Action: The governments of all countries, or the United Nations, must take extraordinary measures to regulate guns, as the gun is an extraordinary item. All guns made in factories (that is, all the ones worth buying) ought to be registered and accounted for. All would-be vendors must be ready to account for every item in their inventory and back up all sales with the requisite papers documenting all buyers as psychologically sound and criminally clean (no violent felons). All buyers must be prepared to attend a mandatory class on gun operation and safety before buying, and must practice at a local shooting range at least once a month. If they wish to carry a weapon, it should be kept visible on the person in a safe container or a concealed-carry license will have to be applied for. All firearms assault crimes ought to have harsher sentencing than regular assault with a deadly weapon, with at least 3 years hard time in prison. Any firearms assault crime committed with a weapon not registered to the felon would carry another 5 years hard time. Any person caught selling unregistered firearms would serve at least 5 years hard time. Finally, all semiautomatic rifles or submachine guns ought to have a maximum capacity of ten shots fired in succession, after which the weapon must be reloaded.

Yes, these rules are extremely rigid and somewhat draconian, but are necessary in order to simultaneously preserve the right of gun ownership for purposes of self-defense and sport and secure the safety of the average citizen, while discuraging criminals and the black market.

P.S. Whoever got the idea swords were better than guns? A pistol is smaller, easier to handle, and if used competently can kill a man from 50 yards away, and repeat the feat multiple times in a matter of seconds. Can your sword do that?

Hey troll, hope you like being ignored!

:upyours:


actually:

1) i was not trolling

2) i was not ignored

3) what i said was true. i have not yet met a gun owner who was not a moron.


nice try, tho. actually, not really

Did you mean this whole second amendment?

"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."

That is all there is to it, not sure what second part you were referring too, must be a special appeasers guide to the Constitution that we are not aware of.


no actually, everyone i get into this argument with elsewhere seems to think that this is the second amendment in its entirety: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

they seem to not understand the part where a private militia made up of civilians is no longer needed to defend the states. the national guard serves that purpose.

or rather, it would serve that purpose, except for the part where they are all in iraq instead of defending us here :rolleyes:

just out of curoisity, can someone tell me why privately owned guns should be allowed, while privately owned nuclear missiles should not?

so far, i have not yet heard an excuse that does not apply to both, and everybody here would agree that giving people nukes is ridiculous.

for example: you say that if guns are banned, people will simply use knives to do the killing, so therefore, we might as well give them guns and get it over with faster. why not give them nukes, and it will all be over even faster than guns?

you also say that if we had no guns, we could not defend ourselves from a facist dictator takeover. well, since the facist dictator could quite easily take down your house from a quarter mile away, guns simply don't cut it anymore. (and i've seen a video of an israeli helicopter sending a missile through the second floor window of a building from that far away) well, since that is the case, guns just don't cut it anymore. if the dictator is taking over, i better damn well be allowed to drive my pickup into the capitol and blast it to hell with my legally obtained nuke.

you say that it takes responsability to handle guns, and that responsable people are not able to purchase one. well, if that's the case, why don't we only let the responsible people buy nukes? after all, we don't have any accidental firearm deaths here, right? so we won't have any accidental nuke deaths either! :rolleyes:

seriously suys, i know perfectly well that people are still going to kill, rob, rape and steal. but we certainly don't have to make it so easy for them to do so.

no actually, everyone i get into this argument with elsewhere seems to think that this is the second amendment in its entirety: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

they seem to not understand the part where a private militia made up of civilians is no longer needed to defend the states. the national guard serves that purpose.

or rather, it would serve that purpose, except for the part where they are all in iraq instead of defending us here :rolleyes:
This is quite possibly the stupidest rationale I've heard concerning the 2nd amendment yet.

Explosive']alright who is the retarded, gay,democratic, pussy who came up with this :headbang: cause who really gives a shit about someone who thinks guns are evil because there are many other weapons that are used to kill people and besides even though they are deadly weapons there have been many lives that have been saved by them in warfare and in everyday life.

If your reading skills matched your flaming skills, you would know the author of this thread is pro-gun and the title is sarcastic. :headbang:

You do realize that when Jesus spoke of turning the other cheek it was meant to be deaming to the person doing the slapping right? In Jesus's life time those in power would smack their servants and those in lower ranks of society by back handing them. By giving said idiot the other cheek you forced him to smack you open palm and made you his equal. It was meant to demean the elitist and make man equal which we all are in the eyes of god.

Wow. How many pages did you have to go to dig this out-of-context?

Try to keep up with developments.

I just thought of something else for our appeasers here.

Tell me what happened in Germany during WWII, what right did Hilter take away from the citizens?

I will be surprised if any of the appeasers get this one

Again, try to keep up. That argument has been raised only about a couple dozen times already in this thread.

just out of curoisity, can someone tell me why privately owned guns should be allowed, while privately owned nuclear missiles should not?

Item one: Nukes are area effect weapons
Item two: Most nukes leave quite a bit of long-lasting damage to an area that can make it dangerous to live in afterwards.
Item three: The second amendment, while providing for self-defense, does not provide for killing innocents who are not trying to harm you.

Happy now?

Item one: Nukes are area effect weapons
Item two: Most nukes leave quite a bit of long-lasting damage to an area that can make it dangerous to live in afterwards.
Item three: The second amendment, while providing for self-defense, does not provide for killing innocents who are not trying to harm you.

Happy now?

Agreed that nukes are allowed.

But the Second Amendment provides no basis for a right to self-defense. (It does not protect an individual right to possess and use firearms, either. But I recognize most in this thread will disagree with that.)

1) you seem to be under the impression that our military is organized enough to do that sort of thing.

2) you also seem to believe that we could actually do anything about it if they actually did. can your hunting rifle take on an apache? that's what i thought


[edit] i find lord zulu's position tolerable, if only for the need to acclimate people to the idea that they do not need to kill things all the timeI havn't finished reading the thread, but this one I couldn't resist replying too.

1) Yes, our millitary IS that organized, you damned fool. If it wasn't, then how could we have had a chance of takeing control of Faluja or protecting the elections in Iraq and Afgahnistan? Think it through before you open your mout. How many times in history has the millitary staged a coup? A hell of a lot.

2) Yes, a Hunting rifle can take down an Apache, you ignorant bullshiter. A hunting rifle (.308 or 30-06) is more powerful than an AK47, m16, or even an m14, all of which are potentialy capable to takeing down a hellichopter. Learth the subject before you open your mouth.

Hail to the "liberals" who wish to ban guns! You're in good company, Hitler, Stalin, just to name a few.

Hail to the "liberals" who wish to ban guns! You're in good company, Hitler, Stalin, just to name a few.

Yeah. You exposed our evil scheme. :rolleyes:

Yeah. You exposed our evil scheme. :rolleyes:

[chuckle]

Okay, some of us don't think you're evil, just... you don't consider the historical patterns very well.
Historically, most successful efforts to disarm the citizenry have permitted takeovers by less-than-responsible people, who in turn put guys like Hitler and Stalin into power. This isn't necessarily according to plan-good intentions and all that, but if there's one thing that is a truth, it's that any system concieved by humans, is going to be flawed, and when you're talking political systems, those flaws will be exploited by the worst sort of people, whom are most often the sort of ruthless types that will pull a purge.
Most often, those purges are justified to the great mass of "The People" as beneficial-this usually works, because the surrendering of responsibility to on-high has already been accomplished. This is most often symbolized by the surrender of the right of self-defense, which is, most often, finished by the legal removal of the means of that self-defense, and the entrusting of all safety to the Government.

Legally, the Police have no obligation to protect you, the Citizen, from attack by criminals, did you know that? This means that if you're a young lady fleeing an abusive bastard who's already vowed to feed you your own entrails, the Police have no requirement to defend you-only to investigate in the aftermath of the assault, and, if possible, bring the man to trial.

cold comfort for the dead, the victimized.

Only YOU can keep you safe.

1.> just because guns are banned from private citizens doesn't mean the milatary doesnt have them ! Do u see British soliders running around with slingshots ? hell no ! Just because americans can't buy jet fighters, tanks,heavy cailber machine guns ...... ect ect doesn't mean the american milatary can't buy them !

2.> just because guns are banned from private citizens doesn't mean law enforcement doesn't have them. Most British police do not carry firearms, though some special branches do. And trained officers have access to firearms.

Hail to the "liberals" who wish to ban guns! You're in good company, Hitler, Stalin, just to name a few.

And don't forget those enslaved masses of the :( UK Japan and Italy yes no guns :( and wait there not :eek: enslaved no :eek: dictators .... whats wrong with this :confused: u mean they have no guns and no-one took :confused: away there rights and enslaved them .... :eek:

But the Second Amendment provides no basis for a right to self-defense. (It does not protect an individual right to possess and use firearms, either. But I recognize most in this thread will disagree with that.)



http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndana.html
A Second Amendment Analog

Introduction

A sentence similar in structure to the Second Amendment is discussed.

An Analogue

"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed."

Obviously this does not mean that only well-educated voters have the right to read or write books. Nor does it mean that the right to read books of one's choosing can be restricted to only those subjects which lead to a well-educated electorate.

The purpose of this provision is: although not everyone may end up being well-educated, enough people will become well-educated to preserve a free society.

Nor can it be construed to deny one's pre-existing right to read books if there are not enough well-educated people to be found. The right to read books of one's choosing is not granted by the above statement. The rationale given is only one reason for not abridging that right, there are others as well.

Similarly the Second Amendment states, the people from whom a necessary and well-regulated militia will be composed, shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed.

It was the Founders' desire "that every man be armed" such that from the "whole body of the people" (militia) a sufficient number would serve in the well-regulated militia.

"Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States."
--- Noah Webster of Pennsylvania, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787



http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

Supreme Court Cases

Summary

The Supreme Court has heard only five cases directly related to the Second Amendment. They are: U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894), U.S. v. Miller (1939), and Lewis v. U.S. (1980). One the Supreme Court refused to hear, Burton v. Sills (1968), and one concerning the meaning of the Fourth Amendment and "the people," U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), are also discussed. (Links to the Supreme Court decisions are provided at the end of each section.)

U.S. v. Cruikshank involved members of the Ku Klux Klan depriving black victims of their basic rights such as freedom of assembly and to bear arms. The court decided that neither the First nor Second Amendments applied to the states, but were limitations on Congress. Thus the federal government had no power to correct these violations, rather the citizens had to rely on the police power of the states for their protection from private individuals.

This case is often misunderstood or quoted out of context by claiming Cruikshank held the Second Amendment does not grant a right to keep and bear arms. However, the court also said this about the First Amendment. The court explained that these rights weren't granted or created by the Constitution, they existed prior to the Constitution.

Presser v. Illinois ruled that the states had the right to strictly regulate private military groups and associations. It also reaffirmed the Cruikshank decision that the Second Amendment acts as a limitation upon the federal government and not the states. However Presser also stated that setting the Second Amendment aside, the states could not prohibit the "people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security..."

Of the Second Amendment cases, U.S. v. Miller is the most mis-cited (intentionally and otherwise) by the lower courts, not to mention the news media, textbooks and encyclopedias. Some courts have acknowledged the true holdings of Miller, but then simply disregarded them. Though referenced again below, please don't forget to read how some courts deliberately mis-cite Miller.

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)

Cruikshank was the first Second Amendment case to reach the Supreme Court. This case is occasionally misrepresented as holding the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms. Typically, Cruikshank is cited out of context by claiming the court held the Second Amendment "is not a right granted by the Constitution." (For example, see U.S. v. Nelsen, 859 F.2d 1318 [8th Cir. 1988] or the ACLU of Massachusetts on the Second Amendment.)

What you are not told is that the same thing was said about the First Amendment and the Court considered these rights pre-existing, thus they are not granted by the Constitution.

Among the counts against Cruikshank et. al, were charges to deprive two blacks of their First and Second Amendment rights. Regarding the First Amendment charges the court stated:

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...

The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits Congress from abridging "the right of the people to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This, like the other amendments proposed and adopted at the same time, was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens, but to operate upon the National government alone...

...For their protection in its enjoyment, therefore, the people must look to the States. The power for that purpose was originally placed there, and it has never been surrendered to the United States.

Similarly regarding the Second Amendment violations the court wrote:

The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."

In brief, following precedent, the court stated the Bill of Rights only applied as a limitation on the "National government." Individuals could not file charges against other citizens in federal court regarding violations of their constitutional rights. It was up to the states to protect the fundamental rights of its citizens when their rights were abridged by other citizens.

Complete text of U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

Presser v. People of Illinois (1886)

Herman Presser was found guilty of parading a group of armed men without authorization in the state of Illinois. The defendant claimed Illinois law violated provisions in the Constitution including the Second Amendment. The Court ruled the states have the power to control and regulate military bodies, including drilling and parading activities. The Court re-affirmed that the Second Amendment applied as a limitation only on the national government and commented no further about it. However the court in dicta (a side opinion which does not form part of the judgment for the purposes of precedent [stare decisis] ) wrote:

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States; and, in view of this prerogative of the General Government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [the Second Amendment] out of view prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the General Government.

Thus, the Presser court expressed the opinion that the states were prohibited from disarming "all citizens capable of bearing arms" because it conflicted with the federal government's right ("prerogative") to a reserve military force and the militia powers granted to Congress by the Constitution ("general powers" refers to Article I, section 8, clauses 15 and 16 of the Constitution).

Complete text of Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886).

Miller v. Texas (1894)

Franklin Miller, convicted of murder, on appeal, claimed his Second and Fourth Amendment rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court upholding the conviction, reaffirmed Cruikshank v. U.S. and stated: "And if the fourteenth amendment limited the power of the states as to such rights, as pertaining to citizens of the United States, we think it was fatal to this claim that it was not set up in the trial court." In other words the court wouldn't even consider whether Miller's rights had been violated under the Fourteenth Amendment because he had not filed such a claim in his original trial.

Complete text of Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894).

U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.

Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,

while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)

Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:

This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! Miller was murdered in April of 1939 (one month before the Court's decision). After the decision, Layton pleaded guilty to transporting a sawed-off shotgun, and received five year's probation. [http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html] ) And so even though the case had been remanded, it was never tried in the lower courts.

In its brief the U.S. government argued the "collective rights" theory. (See GunCite's rebuttal to the U.S. government's brief.)

More importantly please read how the Miller case has been mis-cited by some federal courts and how some rulings are simply based on judges own feelings, desires, and values rather than the rule of law and valid evidence.

Though some circuit courts have adopted a "collective rights" theory of Miller (see the link in the previous paragraph), the first circuit court to analyze Miller held a weapon centric view of the case. However, it did not feel "that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases" because it would "in effect hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute." (Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943).)

Many years later, Justice Hugo Black (one of the judges who decided Miller), commenting on the Second Amendment said,

Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute. (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

A criticism of the Miller decision itself.

Complete text of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court "for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor". In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial.

The court upheld Lewis' conviction, holding:

(a)...the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon - removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury's consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding - suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress' purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.

(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473.

In a footnote the court stated:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").

Note, the Court restated the Miller court's focus on the type of firearm.

The Court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, hold union office, or practice medicine.

Complete text of Lewis v. U.S., 445 U.S. 55 (1980).

Burton v. Sills (1985)

From Stephen Halbrook's "That Every Man be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right":

A...striking erosion of the right to possess arms was exemplified in the New Jersey case of Burton v. Sills (1968). It originated when members of sportsman clubs and gun dealers brought an action to declare unconstitutional the state's gun-control law, which imposed restrictive requirements. Conjuring up an image of "political assassinations, killings of enforcement officers, and snipings during riots," the court expressed exaggerated fears of a revolution. The New Jersey Supreme Court restricted the definition of militia to "the active, organized militias of the states," that is, the National Guard. The court's very use of these adjectives to modify the word "militia" ignores the constitutional militia comprised of all persons capable of bearing arms. The Burton opinion simply fails to provide scholarly, historical, and analytical treatment of the subject, as indeed primarily only the antebellum state opinions do provide.

Complete text of Burton v. Sills (1968).

U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)

This case dealt with whether nonresident aliens, located in a foreign country, were entitled to Fourth Amendment rights. The Court ruled they were not. In discussing the meaning of "the people" in the Fourth Amendment, the Court commented:

" '[T]he people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by 'the people of the United States.' The Second Amendment protects 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,' and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to 'the people.' See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ('Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble') (emphasis added); Art. I, 2, cl. 1 ('The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the people of the several States') (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that 'the people' protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. "

Therefore the Court viewed "the people" in the Second Amendment to have the same meaning as in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments. Many "pro-gun" groups cite this case as resolving "any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right" (National Rifle Association, Fact Sheet: Federal Court Cases Regarding the Second Amendment).

However, the Court didn't discuss whether the militia clause is a limiting factor, and how it might restrict the people's right to keep and bear arms. Moreover, in U.S. v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit stated:

"Citing dicta from United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 265 ... Hale argues that the Second Amendment protections apply to individuals and not to states or collective entities like militias. This argument is inapplicable to this case. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to restrain the federal government from regulating the possession of arms where such regulation would interfere with the preservation or efficiency of the militia ... Whether the 'right to bear arms' for militia purposes is [Page 24] 'individual' or 'collective' in nature is irrelevant where, as here, the individual's possession of arms is not related to the preservation or efficiency of a militia. Id. at 1020."

The Supreme Court denied an appeal of Hale. For a brief criticism of Hale click here.

On a concluding side-note:

"Interestingly, the majority opinion's analysis of 'the people' protected by the Bill of Rights was an elaboration of a point made by the dissenting opinion from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, when the majority had held that Mr. Verdugo was entitled to Fourth Amendment protections. When the Verdugo case went to the Supreme Court, the Solicitor General's office quoted from Ninth Circuit's dissent, but used ellipses to remove the dissent's reference to the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court majority, of course, put the Second Amendment back in."
--- The Supreme Court's Thirty-five Other Gun Cases. By David B. Kopel. Forthcoming in the St. Louis University Public Law Review.

Complete text of United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html



Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?

No, but that hasn't stopped people from trying to produce some. Typically, it is asserted that the Second Amendment was not intended to serve as a check against the potential of a tyrannical government, nor preserve any individual right whatsoever, and that any right to keep arms as referred to in the Second Amendment, applies only while serving active militia duty (such as in today's National Guard).

Not a Check Against a Tyrannical Government?

Historian Garry Wills has made an attempt at claiming the above. An online article, from the gun control group Join Together, reports Wills as writing "any claims that the Constitution ensures an armed citizenry as a bulwark against the potential tyranny of government is a myth [emphasis added]. 'You can't read the amendment apart from the body of the Constitution,' he wrote, 'and the body of the Constitution defines taking up arms against the United States as treason.' " [quoting Wills from his book, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (1999)]

A myth? Not according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811):

"The importance of this article [the Second Amendment] will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers." [emphasis added]
---Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, CHAPTER XLIV, AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

(Who's commentaries on the Constitution would you give greater weight to? Historian Wills', who has very strong opinions on gun owners and gun ownership, or Justice Story's?) [1]

Of course, it's not a right of insurrection or rebellion against a constitutionally elected government that the Second Amendment protects. As Justice Story writes, the right to keep and bear arms offers protection against "usurpations of power by rulers." In fact, "[t]he Governors of Virginia and Pennsylvania were ready to call out the militia if the Federalists in Congress usurped the election of 1800 and blocked the selection of Thomas Jefferson or Aaron Burr as president." (Guns, Words, and Constitutional Interpretation, Powe, L.A. Jr.)

None of this should be surprising, especially since the militia was initially relied upon as the "cornerstone of armed resistance to British policy" (question 3.6 from a militia FAQ). And when Congress was considering its first mlitia act, William Jackson (Secretary of the First Congress) commented on his vision of a militia:

"In a Republic every man ought to be a soldier, and prepared to resist tyranny and usurpation, as well as invasion, and to prevent the greatest of all evils--a standing army."
---"The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States," Gales and Seaton, pub., 1834 (at 1853).

The fact that the militia can be called out to either suppress insurrections or act as the check of last resort is by no means contradictory. Claiming the Second Amendment does not include a check against a tyrannical government because the Constitution provides a means of suppressing insurrections, or defines as treason the taking up of arms against the government, is a non sequitur.

To Keep and Bear Arms: No Private Right?

To Keep

Just as some anti-individual right proponents believe "the people" doesn't include people as individuals, incredulously, some writers claim "keep" doesn't mean what one would ordinarily think "keep" means. For example:

Claim: To "keep" arms in eighteenth-century usage meant to have them in one's personal possession.

Riposte: To "keep" arms in eighteenth-century usage meant to hold them in a communal military arsenal.
(Disarmed by Time: The Second Amendment and the Failure of Originalism, Farber, Daniel A.)

The following laws not only contradict the above fanciful "riposte," but show that non-militia members as well, were expected to "keep" arms at home:

"That all persons though ffreed from Training by the Law yet that they be obliged to Keep Convenient armes and ammunition in Their houses as the Law directs To others." 1 The Colonial Laws of New York.

Persons exempted from enrollment and service in the militia were "required and enjoyned to provide and keep at their respective places of abode ... arms and ammunition." 3 Laws of Virginia.
(The Right to Arms: Does the Constitution or the Predilection of Judges Reign? Dowlut, Robert.)

Forced Communal Storage of Colonial Arms?

In its brief in the Emerson case, the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) claims, "Colonial legislatures from New Hampshire to South Carolina imposed communal storage of firearms and permitted them to be removed only in times of crisis or for muster day. See Harold L. Peterson, Arms and Armor in Colonial America 1526-1783 321-335 (1956)." However, the citation does not check out. The only hint of communal or compulsory storage in that citation is for arms and ammunition that were purchased by state or local legislatures, or supplied by the King. Click on the citation and see for yourself. The CPHV's claim is similar to asserting books are kept communally after only examining our public library system. Actually, the citation notes many instances of personal firearms ownership or statutes where enlisted men were expected to provide themselves with arms. (History professor Michael Bellesiles makes the same claim with the embellishment that "legislators feared that gun-toting freemen might, under special circumstances, pose a threat to the very polity they were supposed to defend. Colonial legislatures therefore strictly regulated the storage of firearms, with the weapons kept in some central place, to be produced only in emergencies or on muster day, or loaned to individuals living in outlying areas. They were to remain the property of the government." [Arming America, p. 73] Bellesiles cites the same Arms and Armor source as well as several others. His citations are every bit as misleading as the latter, and more. His claims and citations deserve and warrant a separate page which can be viewed here.)

Throughout the Colonial period, private ownership and possession of arms was compulsory or encouraged. A smattering of quotes demonstrating this is shown:

"It is further ordered that each inhabitant in this corporation that according to order is to provide and keep Armes, shal provide four pounds of bullets and one pound of powder; and that the chief military officers in each towne shall have power by themselves either by requireing the souldires to appeare at a time and place appointed with their Armes and amunition or by sending forth the clarke to veiw the said amunition..."
[1665]
--- The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. 2, pp. 19-20

"Provided always, and be it enacted, That eighteen months time be given and allowed to each trouper and ffoot soldier not heretofore listed to furnish and provide himself with arms and ammunition according to this act, & that no trooper or foot soldier be fined for appearing without or not having the same at his place of abode untill he hath been eighteen months listed..."
[1705]
--- The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, vol. 6, p. 338

"That every listed souldier and other house-holder (except troopers) shall always be provided with and have in continual readiness, a well-fixed firelock... [and fines levied] for want of such arms and ammunition as is hereby required..."
[1741]
--- The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. 8, p. 380

"For as much as a great Number of Men who shall inlist, or be engaged in the Forces in the Pay of this Province, will be possessed of good Arms of their own, which it is apprehended they will prefer to those furnished by the Crown, not only from their being much lighter, but as from their being accustomed to them, they will be much surer of their mark with those, than with Arms they never handled before... And as a Powder-Horn, Shot-Bag, with a Case for the Lock of their Gun, to preserve it from the Weather, are thought more proper for the present Service than the common Accoutrements, the Men are also to come provided therewith."
[1758]
--- "Lieutenant Governor and Commander in Chief, in and over the Province of New York, and the Territories depending theron in America," Muster rolls of New York provincial troops 1755-1764, vol. 12, p. 514

[Named militia officers from the various townships in which they reside are] "authorized... to proceed from House to House thro' their respective districts and purchase at the cheapest Rate they can be obtained for ready money all such good musketts and firelocks fit for the use of Soldiers, as can be spared by the Inhabitants of the Townships--That those Gentlemen respectively be requested not only to purchase arms as cheap as they reasonably can, but in no case to exceed the price of four pounds for any one Gun Muskett or Firelock...And it is hearby recommended to the Inhabitants of the said Townships to sell such musketts or firelocks as they can spare retaining arms for their own use."
[1776]
--- Documents of the Colonial History of New York, vol. 15, p. 103

Private ownership of military weapons for military purposes continued to be enforced or encouraged during the post-Revolutionary period as well:

"Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties adjoining thereto, shall not be obligated to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer."
[1785]
--- The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, vol. 12, p. 12

Comments of two Founders while discussing the organization of the Nation's first militia:

"[S]ubjecting the whole body of the people to be drawn out four or five times a year was a great and unnecessary tax on the community...As far as the whole body of the people are necessary to the general defence, they ought to be armed; but the law ought not to require more than is necessary; for that would be a just cause of complaint."
[1790]
--- Representative Thomas Fitzsimons (Pennsylvania) "The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States," Gales and Seaton, pub., 1834 (at 1852).

"There are so few freemen in the United States who are not able to provide themselves with arms and accoutrements, that any provision on the part of the United States is unnecessary and improper."
[1790]
--- Representative Roger Sherman (Connecticut) "The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States," Gales and Seaton, pub., 1834 (at 1854).

The first federal militia statute:

"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt..."
--- Militia Act of 1792

"Return of the Adjutant General of the enrolled militia in Pennsylvania, which contained an inventory of the supply of arms (of all types) available for militia use. The editor of the Democratic Press described the Return in these words:"

"Our stock of Public Arms are respectable but it is still more gratifying to observe the number of Private Arms returned. There are no less than twelve thousand six hundred and seventy-eight Rifles reported as private property, and two thousand and thirty-eight public rifles .... Sharp Shooting, Good Marksmanship, is eminently a trait in the American Character ...."
--- DEMOCRATIC PRESS (Phila.), Mar. 8, 1823, at 2. (Source)

Of course some gun control advocates claim since gun registration was sanctioned then (as the previous quote demonstrates), it should certainly be acceptable today. However, the context is completely different – in the past, ownership of militia weapons was encouraged, today it is practically forbidden.

To Keep-up a Militia?

Wills, in an article titled, "To Keep and Bear Arms" (The New York Review of Books, September 21, 1995), writes, "[g]un advocates read 'to keep and bear' disjunctively, and think the verbs refer to entirely separate activities. 'Keep,' for them means 'possess personally at home'--a lot to load into one word. To support this entirely fanciful construction, they have to neglect the vast literature on militias." (Emphasis added.) (Click here to see Wills' entire comments regarding "keep.")

What's fanciful is Wills' hypothesis. It is certainly plausible to claim a phrase means something different from each of its individual words separately. (It's especially tempting when one doesn't like the implications of the words taken at their plain meaning.) However, in this case, Wills ignores the vast body of contrary evidence and offers nothing credible to support his claim.

Wills writes, "To understand what 'keep' means in a military context, we must recognize how the description of a local militia's function was always read in contrast to the role of a standing army." Armies were not kept-up or left standing, militias were kept in readiness. This is true, however unfortunately for Wills, "keep" modifies arms in the Second Amendment, not the well-regulated militia, and as one can see from the examples above, keeping arms in a military contex, when referring to the right of the people, means to personally keep. The people's right to keep arms was guaranteed, against infringement by the federal government, to ensure that the militia could be kept-up.

Summarizing how militias operated in England, and quoting at length from an essay written by Englishman John Trenchard, in 1697 (yes, 1697), Wills tries to draw a parallel between the English and American systems by quoting from the Articles of Confederation:

"[E]very state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and equipage."

He continues, "Thus it is as erroneous to suppose that 'keep' means, of itself, 'keep at home.'" "Keep-up" modifies militia. To repeat again (since Wills makes the same mistake), the meaning of the word keep will of course vary depending on its context and what it modifies. "Keep" in and of itself will not always mean "keep at home" or more precisely keep as an individual. And neither does the fact that the colonies or states had public arsenals imply the right of the people to keep and bear arms is protecting a right to keep arms publicly rather than private arms. The Articles of Confederation provision, which directs the states to provide a "proper" amount of arms is constructed quite differently from the Second Amendment which is meant to preserve the right of the people to keep arms.

Wills also tells us that it is erroneous to assume "'arms' means only guns: As Patrick Henry tells us, the militia's arms include 'regimentals, etc.'--the flags, ensigns, engineering tools, siege apparatus, and other 'accoutrements' of war." Wills has twisted Patrick Henry's statement that refers to arms and equipment in a desparate attempt to show the Founders could not have intended the keeping of arms to be a personal, private right. (Henry's full statement, in context can be viewed here.) (For a quote that not even Wills could twist, see Roger Sherman's comment above, which refers to arms. ("There are so few freemen in the United States who are not able to provide themselves with arms and accoutrements...")

"In America, 'deposition' of arms from the proper hands occurred, most famously, when the King's troops seized the militia's arsenals at Concord in the north and at Williamsburg in the south. That is where arms were kept, lodged, maintained." Again, more twisting from Wills. The historical record suggests otherwise.

There were few arms stored publicly at Concord. Most were privately held, but significant provisions for food, ammunition and powder, and a small number of cannon, were stockpiled in public storage. (See Lemuel Shattuck [hereinafter Shattuck], "A history of the town of Concord, Middlesex County, Massachusetts." Reprint, The Printery [1971]. Originally published: Russel, Odiorne, and Co.; Concord: J. Stacy, 1835. Pp. 93-99.) Shattuck (p. 99) also writes, "The excitement was so great that some carried their guns with them at all times, even while attending public worship on the Sabbath."

Wills concludes, "To separate one term from this context and treat it as specifying a different right (of home possession) is to impart into the language something foreign to each term in itself [emphasis added], to the conjuction of terms, and to the entire context of" the Second Amendment.

Just the quotes from this page, contradict Wills' conclusion, and show that "keeping arms," within the context of the Second Amendment, refers to a private right to possess and own arms in one's dwelling. Also one can see that "arms" signified personal arms such as firearms and swords. Wills musters only one quote that mentions keeping arms (in a parish!) from a late-17th century essay on English militias. The keeping of arms by the people, as individuals, was either encouraged or mandatory for militia members, potential members, and served as an additional source of arms for the militia during emergencies.

Impressment

The CPHV's brief, cited above continues, "Even during the American Revolution, Connecticut and North Carolina impressed firearms without hesitation (citations omitted). Consistently, individual gun possession yielded to collective needs."

In emergencies, guns were impressed, but so were many other items as well as people (not just solidiers). (See The Statutes at Large, Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia, vol. 7, pp. 26-7, The Public Records of the Colony of Connecticut, vol. 10, pp. 479-80. Also, "In times of emergency, the law [of South Carolina] allowed the impressment of supplies, vessels, wagons, provisions, supplies of war, ammunition and gunpowder and such other items as the militia might require. If ships of any description were required, their pilots and sailors could be impressed." [Whisker, James, Militia Treatises, vol. 5])

In emergencies (whether real or perceived) our government occasionally resorts to extreme measures such as impressment, or restrictions on civil rights. A more recent example is the "day of infamy" where Americans of Japanese descent were ordered excluded from the West Coast (Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 21 (1944). See also, Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81 (1943), upholding earlier curfew applying to American citizens of Japanese descent). In emergencies, the right to keep arms has no more "yielded to collective needs" than many other individual rights.

Bear Arms

"Bearing arms," in terms of the common usage of that time, most likely conveyed a military meaning, ie., to serve as a soldier.

The Second Amendment as passed by the House of Representatives read:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. (source)

In the conscientious objector clause, "bearing arms" clearly is intended to convey an exclusively military meaning. The majority of the 1st Congress were lawyers by profession. Standard rules of statutory construction were well established. One of the rules involved, is that when a word or term is used more than once in the same document (let alone the same sentence), it is meant to convey the same, exact meaning. So, it would seem "to bear arms" had a military meaning. Otherwise, we are talking about different meanings associated with the same word within the same amendment. Highly improbable, again, especially since most of the framers were lawyers.

Note, the drafters did not use "keeping and bearing" in connection with the conscientious objector clause, although they obviously could have.

Certainly, and usually in conjunction with modifying terms (such as "in defense of themselves") "bearing arms" was used in a non-military context. However, standing alone, and with no modifiers, it was almost invariably used in a military context. In a legal document, it is not unreasonable to assume "bearing arms" had a military context, especially with the militia clause preceding it.

As for differentiating between keeping and bearing arms, Robert Shalhope expresses the same idea (see "The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment" at 611): "Americans of the Revolutionary generation distinguished between the individual's right to keep arms and the need for a militia in which to bear them. Yet it is equally clear that more often than not they considered these rights inseparable." Shalhope then refers to James Madison's Federalist No. 46 where "Madison drew the usual contrast between the American states, where citizens were armed, and European nations, where governments feared to trust their citizens with arms. Then he observed that 'it is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.'"

Active Militia Members Only?

Some anti-individual right proponents claim today's Second Amendment only protects gun ownership when actively serving in a militia such as today's National Guard. This is usually rationalized by claiming either the militia equals the people, or the militia clause restricts gun ownership to "members only."

The militia and the people were roughly equivalent, but not identical. The "people," as referred to throughout the Bill of Rights were considered freemen as individuals, not militia members. Thus the term people has a wider scope than militia members which were typically from the age of majority to forty-five or fifty years of age. However people older than fifty, if they were capable of bearing arms, could volunteer for militia duty (for example see Shattuck, p. 93), and of course they had the right to keep arms. And, as we know, the right to keep and bear arms refers to the people not the militia. Not all people were militia members.

Was the militia clause meant to be restrictive? There is no evidence that was the intention. The writings of three constitutional commentators, who were contemporaries of the Founders, provide very strong evidence to the contrary. If the militia clause had meant to be restrictive rather than merely stating a rationale or purpose, it's hard to believe that these three jurists would misconstrue the intent and meaning of the Second Amendment:

* St. George Tucker - "The right of self defence is the first law of nature."

* William Rawle - "The prohibition is general."

* Joseph Story - "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic."

(See GunCite's "Quotes from Constitutional Commentators")

(For further comment on the effect of the preamble [the militia clause], see the Fifth Circuit Court's opinion in the Emerson case [scroll down to the section labeled "2. Effect of Preamble."] [(PDF format) ])

Conclusion

After examining the text, laws and customs of the time, and the words of the Founders and their contemporaries, the narrowest plausible reading of the Second Amendment is that it was meant to preserve and guarantee an individual right for a collective purpose. (That does not transform the right into a "collective right" or the right of a "collective.") The militia clause was a declaration of that purpose, and the clause following was the method the framers chose to, in-part, ensure the continuation of a well-regulated militia.

Have fun disproving the evidence of an individual right. ;)

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndana.html

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndcont.html

Have fun disproving the evidence of an individual right. ;)

Meh. QED.

You picked the wrong battle. I have done this before and can easily do it again. Some junk from a pro-gun website is hardly persuasive.

1. The legal precedent is overwhelming that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms.

Here is the official statement of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html) on the issue (emphasis added):

As part of a comprehensive policy position adopted in 1994, the ABA committed itself to work to better inform the public and lawmakers through a sustained educational campaign regarding the true import of the Second Amendment. Opponents of firearms control legislation have relied upon the Second Amendment's guarantee of "the right to bear arms." The Second Amendment, in its entirety, states:

"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."

The United States Supreme Court and lower federal courts have consistently interpreted this Amendment only as a prohibition against Federal interference with State militia and not as a guarantee of an individual's right to keep or carry firearms. The argument that the Second Amendment prohibits all State or Federal regulation of citizen's ownership of firearms has no validity whatsoever.

The controversy over the meaning of the Second Amendment exists only in the public debate over gun control. Few issues have been more distorted and cluttered by misinformation than this one. There is no confusion in the law itself. The strictest gun control laws in the nation have been upheld against Second Amendment challenge, including local bans on handguns. The Supreme Court enunciated in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) what, over fifty years later, remains clearly the law of this country -- that the scope of the people's right to bear arms is limited by the introductory phrase of the Second Amendment regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free State." In Miller, the Court held that the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of..." the state militias and cautioned that the Amendment "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

Since today's "well regulated militia" does not use privately owned firearms, courts since Miller have unanimously held that regulation of such guns does not offend the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has twice reaffirmed its view of the Second Amendment as expressed in Miller. In Burton v. Sills, 394 U.S. 812 (1968), the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal, for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court holding that the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Most recently, in Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55 (1980), the Court held that legislative restrictions on the use of firearms do not - for purposes of equal protection analysis - "trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

The lower federal courts have uniformly followed the interpretation of the Supreme Court. No legislation regulating the private ownership of firearms has been struck down in our nation's history on Second Amendment grounds.

Yet the perception that the Second Amendment is somehow an obstacle to Congress and state and local legislative bodies fashioning laws to regulate firearms remains a pervasive myth. The gun lobby has conducted extensive and expensive campaigns to foster this misperception and the result has been that the myth of the "absolute bar of the Second Amendment" has real effects on regulatory efforts.

As lawyers, as representatives of the legal profession, and as recognized experts on the meaning of the Constitution and our system of justice, we share a responsibility to the public and lawmakers to "say what the law is." The ABA is committed to bringing about a more reasoned and lawyerly discussion of the meaning and import of the Second Amendment.

I can, if necessary, repeat my summary of 67 cases holding that there is no individual right to bear arms. Here is a direct quote (with emphasis added) of almost the entire text of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

...

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[I]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

[Discussion of history of militias in the US and discussion specific state provisions for militias.]

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

2. The right "to bear arms" is not an individual right to possess and use firearms.

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what the Second Amendment says. The definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


3. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

Here is an article from the NRA-ILA explaining that I am right:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

In case you don't trust even the NRA on this, here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/judicial_activism_undermines_the_integrity_of_the_constitution_-_1.htm
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
(You may note that the second article is a conservative screed against incorporation).

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.

Before you go on a rant about Barron. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marsall. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War and a close friend of George Washington. At college, he was taught philosophy by James Madison. He participated in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution as a member of the Virigina legislature. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, he served as Secretary of State.

We can continue this further if you wish, but it is really a waste of time. The caselaw is overwhelming and consistently contrary to your view.

Crap, can't find the citation... Anyone got the exact definition under federal law of the Militia?

Meh. QED.

You picked the wrong battle. I have done this before and can easily do it again. Some junk from a pro-gun website is hardly persuasive.

1. The legal precedent is overwhelming that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to bear arms.

Here is the official statement of the American Bar Association (http://www.abanet.org/gunviol/secondamend.html) on the issue (emphasis added):



I can, if necessary, repeat my summary of 67 cases holding that there is no individual right to bear arms. Here is a direct quote (with emphasis added) of almost the entire text of United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

An indictment in the District Court Western District Arkansas, charged that Jack Miller and Frank Layton 'did unlawfully, knowingly, wilfully, and feloniously transport in interstate commerce from the town of Claremore in the State of Oklahoma to the town of Siloam Springs in the State of Arkansas a certain firearm, to-wit, a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length

...

The District Court held that section 11 of the Act violates the Second Amendment. It accordingly sustained the demurrer and quashed the indictment.

...

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.
The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power-- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, s 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[I]The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

[Discussion of history of militias in the US and discussion specific state provisions for militias.]

Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.

...

We are unable to accept the conclusion of the court below and the challenged judgment must be reversed. The cause will be remanded for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a life-long hunter and conservative Republican, terms the NRA's Second Amendment rhetoric a "fraud" paid for by the firearms industry:
[O]ne of the frauds -- and I use that term advisedly -- on the American people, has been the campaign to mislead the public about the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all . . . . It's shocking to me that the American people have let themselves be conned . . . by the campaigns that are sponsored and financed by the arms industry and the ammunition industry.
Warren Burger, Press Conference Concerning Introduction of the Public Health and Safety Act of 1992, Federal News Service, June 26, 1992, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File; see also Tony Mauro, Bill of Rights Has Not Been Scuttled, USA TODAY , Dec. 16, 1991, at 13A. ("[T]he National Rifle Association has done one of the most amazing jobs of misrepresenting and misleading the public.").

Arch-conservative and leading proponent of the use of original intent in interpreting the constitution, Judge Robert Bork has stated that the Second Amendment operates "to guarantee the right of states to form militia, not for individuals to bear arms." He believes California's assault-weapons ban is, and indeed "probably" all state gun control measures are, constitutional. Claudia Luther, Bork Says State Gun Laws Constitutional, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 15, 1989, at B5; see also Miriam Bensimhorn, The Advocates: Point and Counterpoint, Laurence Tribe and Robert Bork Debate the Framers' Spacious Terms, LIFE, Fall 1991 (Special Issue), at 96, 98 ("[T]he National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks that it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding.").

2. The right "to bear arms" is not an individual right to possess and use firearms.

It is widely assumed that "to keep and bare arms" means "to possess and use firearms," but that is not what the Second Amendment says. The definitive dictionary, the Oxford English Dictionary, makes clear that -- particularly at the time the Second Amendment was written and adopted -- "to bear arms" meant "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

The Oxford English Dictionary defines "to bear arms" as meaning "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight." 1 OED 634
(J.A. Simpson & E.S.C. Weiner eds., 2nd ed. 1989) (hereinafter, "OED"). It defines "to bear arms against" as meaning "to be engaged in hostilities with." 2 id. at 21. As an exemplary use of the phrase in 1769, the OED gives "An ample pardon . . . to all who had born arms against him," and the exemplary use from 1609 is "He bare arms, and made weir against the king." Id.

In the mid-19th century the original usage of "bear arms" was still understood:

"The 28th section of our bill of rights provides "that no citizen of this state shall be compelled to bear arms provided he will pay in equivalent, to be ascertained by law." Here we know that the phrase has a military sense, and no other; and we must infer that it is used in the same sense in the 26th section, which secures to the citizen the right to bear arms. A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffaloes might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms; much less could it be said that a
private citizen bears arms because he has a dirk or pistol concealed under his clothes, or a spear in a cane."
Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys 154 (Tenn. 1840)


3. The Second Amendment does not apply to the states.

The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed and not all provisions of the BoR have been incorporated through the 14th to apply to the states.

Here is an article from the NRA-ILA explaining that I am right:
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/articles/read.aspx?ID=23

In case you don't trust even the NRA on this, here are a couple of other sources:
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_bor.html
http://www.therant.us/staff/nsalvato/judicial_activism_undermines_the_integrity_of_the_constitution_-_1.htm
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0047310-00&templatename=/article/article.html
(You may note that the second article is a conservative screed against incorporation).

In the first Congress in 1789, Congressman James Madison had submitted proposed amendments for the Bill of Rights. One of Madison's proposed amendments would have prohibited states from violating the rights of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The House passed Madison's proposed amendment. But the Senate rejected it because all the states already had their own bills of rights.

In 1833, the Supreme Court addressed the issue and determined the amendments of the Bill of Rights, applied only to the national government and not to the states. Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Peters 243 (1833). You can read the case for yourself at: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/32/243.html. It is pretty short and easy to read.

Before you go on a rant about Barron. The majority opinion was written by Chief Justice John Marsall. He was a hero of the Revolutionary War and a close friend of George Washington. At college, he was taught philosophy by James Madison. He participated in the debates over the ratification of the Constitution as a member of the Virigina legislature. Prior to becoming Chief Justice, he served as Secretary of State.

We can continue this further if you wish, but it is really a waste of time. The caselaw is overwhelming and consistently contrary to your view.
This is gonna be fun :cool:

Concerning your crap, for that's what it is, about Miller had you bothered to read what was quoted.
Of the Second Amendment cases, U.S. v. Miller is the most mis-cited (intentionally and otherwise) by the lower courts, not to mention the news media, textbooks and encyclopedias. Some courts have acknowledged the true holdings of Miller, but then simply disregarded them. Though referenced again below, please don't forget to read how some courts deliberately mis-cite Miller.
.
.
.
.
.
.


U.S. v. Miller (1939)

Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:

1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.

2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."

3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."

As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.

Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,

while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)

Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:

This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)

The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! Miller was murdered in April of 1939 (one month before the Court's decision). After the decision, Layton pleaded guilty to transporting a sawed-off shotgun, and received five year's probation. [http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html] ) And so even though the case had been remanded, it was never tried in the lower courts.

In its brief the U.S. government argued the "collective rights" theory. (See GunCite's rebuttal to the U.S. government's brief.)

More importantly please read how the Miller case has been mis-cited by some federal courts and how some rulings are simply based on judges own feelings, desires, and values rather than the rule of law and valid evidence.

Though some circuit courts have adopted a "collective rights" theory of Miller (see the link in the previous paragraph), the first circuit court to analyze Miller held a weapon centric view of the case. However, it did not feel "that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases" because it would "in effect hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute." (Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943).)

Many years later, Justice Hugo Black (one of the judges who decided Miller), commenting on the Second Amendment said,

Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute. (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)

A criticism of the Miller decision itself.

Complete text of U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)

Title VII of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 forbids the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. Lewis, the petitioner, was convicted of a felony in a 1961 state court "for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor". In 1977, in Virginia, Lewis was charged with receiving and possessing a firearm in violation of the above act. Lewis, claimed his latest conviction violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments because he had no counsel present during his 1961 trial.

The court upheld Lewis' conviction, holding:

(a)...the fact that there are remedies available to a convicted felon - removal of the firearm disability by a qualifying pardon or the Secretary of the Treasury's consent, as specified in the Act, or a challenge to the prior conviction in an appropriate court proceeding - suggests that Congress intended that the defendant clear his status before obtaining a firearm, thereby fulfilling Congress' purpose to keep firearms away from persons classified as potentially irresponsible and dangerous.

(b) The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, since Congress could rationally conclude that any felony conviction, even an allegedly invalid one, is a sufficient basis on which to prohibit the possession of a firearm. And use of an uncounseled felony conviction as the basis for imposing a civil firearms disability, enforceable by criminal sanction, is not inconsistent with Burgett v. Texas, 389 U.S. 109; United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443; and Loper v. Beto, 405 U.S. 473.

In a footnote the court stated:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to [445 U.S. 55, 66] the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia").

Note, the Court restated the Miller court's focus on the type of firearm.

The Court also commented it was customary to deny convicted felons the right to vote, to hold union office, or practice medicine.
Oh noes, you Miller reference went up in smoke.

As for the individual bit, did you even read my quote from the last source? I'm not gonna repost it, but you might want to go back and reread it.

People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed — even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years.
And if you are going to disparage John Lott, at least give a good reason.
"over the last couple of years" is hardly a discussable term. It can strech from 3 to, say, 6 or even 7 or 9 years. Weak arguments like this do undermine the point by making the arguer seem unreliable and ressorting to underhanded methods.

[quote]People's reaction to the horrific events displayed on TV such as the Minnesota attack are understandable, but the more than two million times each year that Americans use guns defensively are never discussed — even though this is five times as often as the 450,000 times that guns are used to commit crimes over the last couple of years.[quote]



For me, the fact that Americans use guns more than 2 million times annually for defence is equally concerning. What sort of society is it where one must carry a gun to protect oneself? I would imagine it is a society that is so saturiated with guns, people are almost forced to turn to owning one for protection against the fact that any criminal can get hold of one so simply.

If only the police/military has guns, what would stop them from becoming a totalitarian regime? No one could stand up to them, because they would just get shot, with no consequences for the police/military. And what about corruption? The government would have no reason to listen to the people. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

The politicians command the military. And the military accepts that. If they wanted a military coup, there'd be nothing stopping them even now. And the politicians will listen to the people as long as they're freely elected.

i havent read all the posts, but guns are no different than any other weapon or tool. it all depends on the person

Guns are different. They aren't like knives at all, because guns have only one use, to harm and kill. (And hunt - but how often do most people catch their own food? It just isn't necessary) They make desperate people feel powerful and safe, when they don't make you any more bulletproof, just let you kill. My life is in less jeopardy with no guns around than if every nut with a hot temper had one. (I'm not in the US, if you can't tell.)

America is one of the most violent states in the world. This has much to do with the fact that cultural norms and public policy tend to favor the perpetuation of the traditional systems of privilege and oppression that mainstream mysoginy, fear/objectification of women, paranoia about non-white non-heterosexual males, other systems of governance including socialism and non-governance, disciplinary practices in which individuals and groups work to divide and conquer for the owning class, and a plethora of other archaic patriachal advents. The only two things that have survived since the Age of Goddesses is the fear and mystique of their ethereal counterparts. 1st, this week is Sexual Assault Awareness week. It's the most brutal epidemic. It's the world's silent epidemic. Hug the women in your lives and let them know you're not a patriarch out to dominate them or abuse them sexually or otherwise. 2nd, NEVER UNDERESTIMATE WOMEN! Don't perpetuate patriarchy, you're only hurting yourself and everyone else. Chose the path of greater resistance and don't be a violent prick.

instead of buying a gun or a big stupid red truck because of phallic inadequacies...get a penis pump! :headbang:
(btw this isn't saying that the one i'm quoting is a patriarch, etc.)



Guns dont kill americans, americans kill each other.

The reason you have all this gun play is not because of gun control laws or concealed weapon laws but because america is a violent society.

You can have all the guns you want but you will still have lots of gun play and violent crime. You can have all the gun control laws you want, americans are still going to blast each otehr away....

Last time I checked, having control of the means of voting doesn't really constitute a free election. :headbang:


The politicians command the military. And the military accepts that. If they wanted a military coup, there'd be nothing stopping them even now. And the politicians will listen to the people as long as they're freely elected.

Guns are different. They aren't like knives at all, because guns have only one use, to harm and kill. (And hunt - but how often do most people catch their own food? It just isn't necessary) They make desperate people feel powerful and safe, when they don't make you any more bulletproof, just let you kill.
True, and since most criminals don't have a death wish, they'll back off. Now, some criminals are desperate enough that brandishing a gun might not stop them, but how often do normal civilians confront those people?

The politicians command the military. And the military accepts that. If they wanted a military coup, there'd be nothing stopping them even now. And the politicians will listen to the people as long as they're freely elected.
and what happens when "the people" don't agree on something? the politicians are elected by the majority...so what happens when the minority conflicts with the majority? all the people controlling the guns are working for the majority, remember.

1st, this week is Sexual Assault Awareness week. It's the most brutal epidemic. It's the world's silent epidemic. Hug the women in your lives and let them know you're not a patriarch out to dominate them or abuse them sexually or otherwise. 2nd, NEVER UNDERESTIMATE WOMEN! Don't perpetuate patriarchy, you're only hurting yourself and everyone else. Chose the path of greater resistance and don't be a violent prick.
Shall we discuss the most effective ways for women to resist sexual assualt? Guess what's at the top of the list?

I have a few IMPORTANT questions:

Are you not 10 times more likely to kill a familiy member than a theif, if you have a gun in your home?

How many crimes are commited with guns in the US every year?

How many crimes is prevented with guns every year?

How many is killed with guns every year?

How many is wounded with guns in the US every year?

How many lives is saved with guns every year?

How much does the current gun "culture" cost the healt system each year?

It seem a lot of people need guns to protect them self! Why?

Why does it seem like the police is not able to protect ordinary people! Why?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language) :confused:

Are you not 10 times more likely to kill a familiy member than a theif, if you have a gun in your home?

You have a couple of varying statistics on that one. One that has been much touted by organizations such as HCI said a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a family member. Problem is, 37 of the 43 were sucides. That and the fact that it was retracted by the author makes it suspect to say the least. That would still leave it at about 6 times as likely, but it also included cases where family member murdered each other or killed a family member in self-defense. However, given that accidental shootings are responsible for less deaths each year than accidental drownings in bathtubs I doubt it's high at all.

You have a couple of varying statistics on that one. One that has been much touted by organizations such as HCI said a gun in the home was 43 times more likely to kill a family member. Problem is, 37 of the 43 were sucides. That and the fact that it was retracted by the author makes it suspect to say the least. That would still leave it at about 6 times as likely, but it also included cases where family member murdered each other or killed a family member in self-defense. However, given that accidental shootings are responsible for less deaths each year than accidental drownings in bathtubs I doubt it's high at all.

Thx... but we need more ansewers!

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language) :confused:

I have seen many quotes in this thread of british gun deaths being less than America. This is true, but let me clarify. You say the US has 1000 deaths a year, in a country of about 250 million. The Uk having 100 deaths (due DIRECTLY to firearms) in a country of 60 million places the UK just half the number of deaths per person. Dont seem so pacifist now do we. And on that, the political system only applies to those who want to obey the law. Lots of criminals + people who are pacifist = out of control criminals.

However, an issue noone has raised is the knock-on effect of banning guns. Criminals, by their very nature, DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. By banning guns, only the law-abiding, tax-paying, decent citizen (or civilian) is prevented from owning them.

From the criminals point of view, this is a god-send. They now do not fear retaliation to threats of violence. There is even a situation brewing now in the UK where criminals are using replicas instead of real firearms, because just the presence of a gun is enough to make most people turn out their wallets, not owning a gun themselves to use back.

I have been wondering where all of this damned Political Correctness has come from. The laws that are made and sentences that are issued are all completely bonkers. Take the case of Tony Martin. Two individuals break into his house in the middle of the night. He gets woken up by the noise, and ends up finding them and shoots them both with a shotgun, killing one. The official advise (from the police of all people....) is to stay in your room, call the police and let them take what they want.

What next? Go down stairs and make them a cup of tea and a strawberry jam sandwich as well? Tell your wife to roll over and let them have her too? Stuff that. When somebody breaks into your house, you have no idea of their intentions or numbers, but you can be sure of one thing: what they are going to be armed with. Will you place your children's lifes on the line for politically correctness?

This is the critical point kiddies, guns have already been invented. They are NOT going away. If you ban them, crime rockets (look at UK government crime stats since the handgun ban.....) and the criminals just get guns from somewhere else.

Being in the RAF, i feel a lot safer knowing that there are the good, well trained RAF Regiment boys at the gate with a nice big gun.

You do not understand American crime. There are streets in the country where a white person has a poor chance of survival should they be foolish enough to try and drive down them at the wrong time. Should you die this way, the weapon used may or may not be a gun. And if it is, it most certainly isn't a legal one. The cities where this kind of stuff happens have the greatest restrictions on firearms. If you're interested there are a number of movies you can watch about "life on the street", some being more or less realistic. I would recomend the movie "Training Day".

Yes but is the solution to that guns? Why do you have who's streets and why does the people there hate whites? Answer who's question could be a start. And the process of guncontroll is long and hard for American I know, because you have so many guns already, also you can easily go to another state to buy a gun. But it still a struggle worth figting.

To commen on Cadillac-Gage No my mainpoint was not that the few sweds gets killed, my main point is very few swedes face the risk of getting killed. rougly a change of 4/100000 a year. So if the USA have it a so bad that you need guns or get killed as a early poster said, then you have bigger problems that need other solution then guns, as your self sugesting. Also if my expericens from swedish is pretty transferible over to the USA that most violent crimes is not maid by some unknown evildoer, but instead of someone your know, the gun will be a more risk then help. Becaue houshold violence, drinkbuddies getting made at eatcheter and stuff like will useally involves fists and unleathel weapons and end up with some beaten up, but if you have guns precence it can even have more tradigic results. Also you have the problem with having guns for protetcion, you have to have them ready for use, so you don't hide them in places there it's hard to get them, therefor making it easier for children to get the hold on them and that is really bad.

Also yes people are adults, but still the goverment have to make laws that infringe on their rights because it have a soo bad concevences for society, like for stopping people from having bazookas or not allowing them to use coccaine as extreme exampel. Self I think guns have more downs then ups then it comes to personalsafety in a society acpects because of the reason I mention earlier. But you can have gunlwas like in Sweden there you are allowed to have guns if you hunt and show that you are responsible also that you can get guns if you join a shooting club and are serius and resonsible.

To: Strongbad-land

We smell fear...but little brain activity :D

I think we need more research, we need some ansewers! Do you have any numbers or statistics to back up your claim? If you do plz show them to us!?

I have a few IMPORTANT questions:

Are you not about 6 times more likely to kill a familiy member than a theif, if you have a gun in your home?

How many crimes are commited with guns in the US every year?

How many crimes are prevented with guns every year, in the US?

How many are killed with guns every year, in the US?

How many are wounded with guns in the US every year?

How many lives are saved with guns every year, in the US?

How much does the current gun "culture" cost the healt system each year, in the US every year?

It seem like a lot of people need guns to protect them self, in the US! Why?

Why does it seem like the police are not able to protect ordinary people, in the US! Why?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

ive been following this thread for a while now and just want to bring up a few points.............

there seems to be a lot of talk of guns as tools im having a hard time getting my head round this surely guns only kill/injure (the only argument i see is for hunting which still involves killing the animal) ive never seen a gun used for any other purpose... a knife is often compared to it but a knife (whilst still lethal but then again so can be stapler if you keep at it) is used for cutting of meats etc. etc. thats its use.......it can be used to stab cut people yes thats just the way it is same as if i repeatedly kick you in the head its gonna injure you in comparison a gun is designed to kill nothing more.

some people have even claimed to feel safer owning a gun i dont think i would if a crimal tried to rob me would i want to have a blazing gun battle in the middle of the street or just hand over my wallet?

im not trying to change the world everyone has there views but surely allowing the populace access to dangerous weapons makes it a dangerous place where anyone with a grudge or radical political ideas even if they just have a bad temper can take someones life.

:sniper:

No need for insults in an intellectual debate.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6025

The spreadsheet on this link to the national statistics shows that offences involving firearms has risen, reinforced by:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=7347
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=6339

Shows that crimes involving firearms account for HALF of all crimes, despite the handgun ban, thus confirming that crime has infact risen as i said.

Onto your points.
I could say that was an unsubstantiated claim, but i am not petty, and do believe it to be true. Run around your house like an idiot spraying off with a .45 submachine gun and you are very likely to kill someone in your family rather than a burglar. And if you keep it safe, no little kiddies can get their hands on it. This is why i strongly believe that all people who want a firearm should have a test like a driving test, and even have a standard type locker available where you can keep it safe. There are cases in US with kiddies blowing their own or friends heads off because the stupid parents leave a loaded handgun on the bedside cabinet. These idiots should not be allowed to own a gun.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/03cius.htm has the full FBI report on ALL crimes in 2003 (latest report). 66.9% of all crime involved firearms. The crime breakdown, if you do not wish to do your own research, is as follows:

Murder / Non-negligent manslaughter: 16503
Forcible rape: 93433
Robbery: 413402
Aggravated assault: 857921
TOTAL Violent Crime: 1381259

Burglary: 2153164
Larceny-theft: 7012588
Motor-Vehicle theft: 1260471
TOTAL Property Crime: 10435523

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_03/xl/03tbl2-12.xls has the actual lists of murder by actual weapon, in which there were 9638 murders with firearms in general.

This answers most of them. The first 2 links show that as police guns increase, firearms offences against police go down. I hate assuming but I cant find stats on how many ordinary people are saved by having a firearm, but i would bet they wouldnt be as good as the police, because the criminals know the police have guns. They do not know if a civilian has a firearm, but they know that they most probably do not (in the UK).

"It seem a lot of people need guns to protect them self! Why?" What are you going to use? Your incredible Kung-fu powers? The guns exist, criminals obviously use them, surely we must have a way to deter them from committing the crime, or if that doesnt work, give you a fighting chance of survival.

I have every faith in the police to do the job they are told to do. This, unfortunately, do to the PC culture results in officers spending nearly all their time cooped behind a computer rather than on the beat stopping crime. By this, the police do not prevent crime, they catch the criminal after the crime has been commited. They WILL NOT save your life if this robber decides to shoot you for your mobile phone. They will catch him later, give him 2 years in jail and say a nice bit at your funeral.

I have only 1 question back to you. Why is it that the main bulk of people who openly oppose guns are the ones who have never seen them in use against another human being?

I just thought of something else for our appeasers here.

Tell me what happened in Germany during WWII, what right did Hilter take away from the citizens?

I will be surprised if any of the appeasers get this one

He took a lot of rights, gave some others and, lo and behold, every upright citizen of germanic blood still had the right to possess handguns and rifles.
If you wanted to hint a "Hitler took away the guns", you just repeat a fallacy that has been spouted over and over. For those of you that can read german, here (http://www.documentarchiv.de/ns.html) are the laws made during 1933-1945 and you wont find any disallowing the possession or carriage of firearms.
But likening Hitler=evil dictator and Hitler=anti-gun is of course just a rational, valid and strongly logical argument, right? :rolleyes:

Good point Groovy Pig, a country which allows uncontrolled access to guns is simply asking for trouble.

Many have given suggestions to sort out gun crime, but banning is not the solution by any means. The more effective the solution, the more effective the response by the criminal. We are competing against another human will here, linear logic plays no part in this discussion. Read Strategy: Edward N. Luttwak 1987, or Carl Von Clausewitz (1833), Princeton University Press.

I have seen many quotes in this thread of british gun deaths being less than America. This is true, but let me clarify. You say the US has 1000 deaths a year, in a country of about 250 million. The Uk having 100 deaths (due DIRECTLY to firearms) in a country of 60 million places the UK just half the number of deaths per person. Dont seem so pacifist now do we.
While its nice to see that you can do math, the number for the US is 10000+ which is ten times the number you compare with the UK. Thus we are talking a more than twentyfold number. Correct me if im wrong, but i would say that is a rather significant gap.

Last time I checked, having control of the means of voting doesn't really constitute a free election. :headbang:
Incongruitia, could you please post your replies under the quote you are refering to? It is hard to follow otherwise, seeing the effect first and the cause later. Besides it annoys me pretty much.

:rolleyes: caught out. I planned to put down that figure which was used on the previous page, but got so caught up in the moment i ended up using it myself! I really should have quoted it. Thanks for the note! :) Gun crime is a massive problem in the US but we also have a not so insignificant problem here in the UK, that was all I was trying to say.

To: Strongbad-land

I could say that was an unsubstantiated claim, but i am not petty, and do believe it to be true. Run around your house like an idiot spraying off with a .45 submachine gun and you are very likely to kill someone in your family rather than a burglar. And if you keep it safe, no little kiddies can get their hands on it. This is why i strongly believe that all people who want a firearm should have a test like a driving test, and even have a standard type locker available where you can keep it safe. There are cases in US with kiddies blowing their own or friends heads off because the stupid parents leave a loaded handgun on the bedside cabinet. These idiots should not be allowed to own a gun.

-Some people behave stupid, but are far less dangerous if they do not have a handgun. :D


"It seem a lot of people need guns to protect them self! Why?" What are you going to use? Your incredible Kung-fu powers? The guns exist, criminals obviously use them, surely we must have a way to deter them from committing the crime, or if that doesnt work, give you a fighting chance of survival.

-Is fear the only language you understand?! I phone the police. It works very well :D

I have only 1 question back to you. Why is it that the main bulk of people who openly oppose guns are the ones who have never seen them in use against another human being?

-False, wrong & retorical. Plz make a real question.

No need for insults in an intellectual debate.

-Sorry about that :( I just couldn´t resist :cool:

-What turns a 16 year old boy into a killing machine? Not anger alone nor Fustration. Proberly not even a baseballbat. People are actually quite hard to kill, if you are an averige person. You could, but its not easy. Unless ofcause... you have a handgun. :rolleyes:

Lets compare USA to Denmark.
-In the US there is 10 times as much police as in Denmark. A huge amout of people are in prison. High murder rates. High crime rates. Ordinary citizens live in fear. Well armed criminals. I wonder why!? :confused:

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

"It seem a lot of people need guns to protect them self! Why?" What are you going to use? Your incredible Kung-fu powers? The guns exist, criminals obviously use them, surely we must have a way to deter them from committing the crime, or if that doesnt work, give you a fighting chance of survival.
?

in response to guns as a deterent as already stated no one is sure if any person is in possession of a firearm when you draw it yes it will have a determental affect but that only raises the stakes in a confrontation (i.e. if you have a gun so do i! oh you have a big gun well il buy a bigger gun! lol)

in response to giving you a fighting chance surely advoiding the confrontation would be easier even if that means giving up your wallet is it a trade off for your life?
i am not in favour of a complete ban on guns to do this would be near impossible to manage but i am in favour of tighter gun laws.

as for seeing the effects of guns i work in a war museum its all i see and hear about everyday

P.S. Whoever got the idea swords were better than guns? A pistol is smaller, easier to handle, and if used competently can kill a man from 50 yards away, and repeat the feat multiple times in a matter of seconds. Can your sword do that?

Uh...I think the person who came up with that idea was anti-gun, not pro-gun. Swords are better, so to speak, because they are larger, harder to handle, and cannot kill a man from 50 yards away. (I'm actually against swords also, by the way—they're sharp, dangerous, and when used competently can kill people. And you can't argue that swords have another purpose other than killing, because they don't.)

For that matter, what's the principal difference between killing someone in self-defense and killing someone in offense? (And don't be smart-alecky and say "the prison sentence".) Each one results in a loss of life. Guns in general were designed for one purpose alone, to kill or injure people, no matter whether they're in the hands of the police or a serial killer, a Marine or a terrorist.

Very good point FMSlugs, an idiot is remarkably less dangerous without a handgun!

Personally i do fear another human being with the express intent of using an item intended purely to kill in an attempt to deprive me of what i have rightfully earned. True, i could call the police when it happens, but it is a shame the police cant be everywhere. The criminals would have taken my possessions and would be well away before the police arrived. Not that a gun would make much difference, unless you plan to shoot everyone who looks suspicious!

I have faith in the police to catch the person afterwards, but no faith in the justice system to jail the person for enough time to give him the punishment he needs to be rehabilitated.

Groovy Pig, of course it is better to avoid the confrontation by following common sense; dont walk down dark alleys at night or go in areas that are known to be dangerous etc. However, sometimes the criminal will not approach you and threaten violence for items, they may just attack first, rob later. A gun is of no use in these circumstances (unless you shoot them in the back as they run off, which is simply murder), but if someone was to break into a house (MINE in particular), i wouldn't know whether they planned to steal, or to kill. I know most people have a problem with taking another human life, but I wouldnt want to bet my life (or my children's for that matter) against the morality of someone who has already broken into a property with the intent to do something criminal.

And i don't mean any offence GPig, but looking at a picture of a gun's handiwork and being next to a gun's handiwork are very different. People are VERY fragile (even with a baseball bat FMSlug, 1 hit over the head is likely to kill or send them to hospital in a very bad state)

Czardas, you are absolutely right. There is no difference in the types of death. Everybody dies equally. I know ill get destroyed in a minute for saying this :) ....but which scenario leads to the better outcome for society: A criminal shoots a decent citizen (criminal survives), or a decent citizen shoots a criminal (decent citizen survives)?

I know thats slightly rhetorical too, i just wanna see how long it takes people to rip it to pieces :)

How dare you. Guns are not evil. A gun is just a tool. The one doing the killing is the one firing the trigger. A gun will not go off unless the trigger is fired or a spark lands on the cartrage. The united states of America wouldn't be the same if it wasn't for guns. Guns are not Evil. They are GOOOOD :sniper:

You could continue by saying "guns dont kill people, people dont kill people, BULLETS KILL PEOPLE!!!" :confused:

True though (if sounding a bit like a maniac... :mp5: ), the tool is always going to be around, and if trends increase, is going to get more powerful. We need to focus on the people who use them, not the item itself. i don't recall people calling the pen that wrote mein kampf or the paper it was written on to stand trial.

I want to see people start to get speared with crossbows. Or throwing darts.


-Is fear the only language you understand?! I phone the police. It works very well :D


I wonder how many times you've ever actually been in an actual crisis situation.

I bet I can count it on less than one finger.

Guns dont kill americans, americans kill each other.

The reason you have all this gun play is not because of gun control laws or concealed weapon laws but because america is a violent society.

You can have all the guns you want but you will still have lots of gun play and violent crime. You can have all the gun control laws you want, americans are still going to blast each otehr away....

I think it's partly that America has a violent society, but it's also because guns are more readily available anyway.

The united states of America wouldn't be the same if it wasn't for guns.

you're right there; it would be a better country.

you're right there; it would be a better country.
It wouldn't be a country.

you all dident lessen to all i said or dident understand i wasent refering to out side threats when i said " a dissarmed pop. is a easy to take over pop." i was talking about the U.S. gov becomeing a dictatorship. with out guns there would be no way to stop that from happening...
swords are nice and your right they can do a whole ton more damage than guns but guns have the range that swords do not...
so yea lets just step a side toss away all our rights which is what the U.S gov is currently doing takeing away our rights.
look at the patriot act.... they could arrest any one in the whole contry all you have to do is indanger other "non-combatent targets" they can allso come into your house and talk any thing they want under the cover of "nationaly security"...
you really want that do you ........
i dont ....
and i hope for all our sakes that you dont to...

But US IS becoming a dictatorship...

How dare you. Guns are not evil. A gun is just a tool. The one doing the killing is the one firing the trigger. A gun will not go off unless the trigger is fired or a spark lands on the cartrage. The united states of America wouldn't be the same if it wasn't for guns. Guns are not Evil. They are GOOOOD :sniper:
Guns are neither good or bad. (and by the way, a spark hitting a cartridge will not set it off. You would have to throw it in a fire.)

They are merely tools.

A gun is something that you will probably never need. But you forget all the potential uses a gun has.

1) Target shooting. This is a hobby, a passion. People devote their lives to this sport, it isnt violent like football or boxing, and it teaches a great amount of self control.

2) plinking. There is no better way to spend an afternoon than popping tin cans with .22.

3) HUNTING. Before everyone goes all "bows, they are fair", I'll tell you that its bullshit, you can take deer with one but only in certain areas, in certain conditions and you cant take any kind of bird with one, for which you need a shotgun. Also you have to get, very, very close and not everyone lives near a dense enough forest to be able to do so.

4) Protection. That doesnt mean getting in a pitched gunbattle with a burgular because thats not how it works. Usually the perp has some other weapon, a knife or something. I refuse to risk my life wrestling with a knife, thats taking a 50-50 chance on my future. There are times when lethal force is necessary to defend oneself.

5) The only people who use guns in a violent manner are people who are already committing a crime, usually a violent one. The only exceptions are the big massacres you here about. You know what the solution to those are? Start being nice to people. Dont smack around the little kid in the hall from now on. Jeez, hasnt anyone figured out that people commit crimes for a reason, and the best way to stop them, is to remove the reason?

Now, I'm going to clear up some misconceptions...

1)AK-47s, AR-15s and similar rifles are not assault weapons. They operate no differently than many hunting rifles, and unless you own a military version (you need some crazy liscences for that even in the states) or are ALREADY A CROOK, they are semi auto only.

2)"Gun nuts". I'm a gun nut and I can tell you that "gun nuts" are the last people to go on a rampage or commit a crime. In fact they are rediculously law abiding. We are too educated on the subject and enjoy our hobby too much to bother. We come from all walks of life, that means liberal, centrist, conservative and just plain PEOPLE. Yes there are redneck gun owners, and stupid gunowners, but there are also very, very smart ones. The one thing we have in common is that we like shooting guns of all shapes and sizes.

3) "Sensationalist" guns. For example: Glocks cannot pass through metal detectors, they are only plastic on the outside. A .50 BMG rifle can indeed kill someone from a mile away, but there has never been a violent crime committed with one. I dont know where people think this stuff up but its a real laugh.

Please, leave us alone and let us enjoy our hobby in PEACE. Try banning cars or something, they are way more dangerous, and are used to recklessly endanger the lives of others every single minute of every single hour.

Btw, I own 27 different firearms and am Canadian, if my nationality is important.

This is gonna be fun :cool:

Concerning your crap, for that's what it is, about Miller had you bothered to read what was quoted.

Oh noes, you Miller reference went up in smoke.

As for the individual bit, did you even read my quote from the last source? I'm not gonna repost it, but you might want to go back and reread it.

I quoted Miller verbatim. Not attempts to gloss over it by third-hand comentators. What the case actually said is a bit more important than what some pro-gun parties would like it to say.

I read your quote. It was an amalgam of bits and pieces from various sources.

You ignored all 3 of my arguments. Including the opinions of the ABA, Chief Justice Burger and Judge Robert Bork.

In the history of our republic, no court has ever struck down any gun control legislation -- including bans on handguns -- as violating the Second Amendment. The issue has been decided by scores of courts over at least 150 years. You are pissing in the wind of history.

When you actually want to discuss the matter intelligently rather than cut-and-paste from a website without discussing my arguments, we can proceed.

In the meantime, my arguments stand.

[QUOTE=Isanyonehome]For me, the fact that Americans use guns more than 2 million times annually for defence is equally concerning. What sort of society is it where one must carry a gun to protect oneself? I would imagine it is a society that is so saturiated with guns, people are almost forced to turn to owning one for protection against the fact that any criminal can get hold of one so simply. That's the thing, it's the society, not the guns that are the problem. In our society, guns tend to solve more problems than they cause(Examples of Texas relative to New York come to mind). Other societies do not have a need for guns, such as Great Britain.

It is indeed a state we have come to when we need the imediate threat of death to an attacker in order to diswade assault, robery, and murder, but that is because of guns.

Guns are different. They aren't like knives at all, because guns have only one use, to harm and kill. (And hunt - but how often do most people catch their own food? It just isn't necessary) They make desperate people feel powerful and safe, when they don't make you any more bulletproof, just let you kill. My life is in less jeopardy with no guns around than if every nut with a hot temper had one. (I'm not in the US, if you can't tell.) Guns also have recreational use. Hell even the olymics has an event with rifle shooting. So should baseball bats, golf clubs, and piano wire also be illegal?

in response to guns as a deterent as already stated no one is sure if any person is in possession of a firearm when you draw it yes it will have a determental affect but that only raises the stakes in a confrontation (i.e. if you have a gun so do i! oh you have a big gun well il buy a bigger gun! lol) Yes, but if you increase the number of guns per capita, then the average risk to the criminal increases. The more risk for the same reward means less people taking the risk.

in response to giving you a fighting chance surely advoiding the confrontation would be easier even if that means giving up your wallet is it a trade off for your life? This makes sense in a logical perspective, but it also turns out to be false. statistics have shown that women are more likely to be killed if they don't fight back against a rapist than if they do fight back. Appeasment virtualy never works on any scale according to history.

i am not in favour of a complete ban on guns to do this would be near impossible to manage but i am in favour of tighter gun laws.

as for seeing the effects of guns i work in a war museum its all i see and hear about everydayI belive enforceing the existing gun laws, such as violent fellons not being allowed to own one, would be much more effective than making more laws that the police aren't going to enforce.

War is a rather exceptional cercumstance to judge an invention's use, isn't it? People have been killing each other since before they were homo-sapiens, guns just make it so that everyone fears each other equily, rather than the 200 lbs. thug being able to rape a 120 lbs woman without a care in the world.

I have a few IMPORTANT questions:

Are you not 10 times more likely to kill a familiy member than a theif, if you have a gun in your home?No, because my guns would be kept in a secure area. not accessable to my children, in any and every circumstance.

How many crimes are commited with guns in the US every year?Ban guns and only the criminals will have em. Drugs are illegal yet we have alot of drug use, Under-age drinking is illegal... and it still happens. so how will banning Guns lower Gun related crimes?

How many crimes is prevented with guns every year?alot more than is reported. would you commit a crime knowing the person you're muggin might have a gun?

How many is killed with guns every year?and how many of those deaths are from people acting irrisponsibly with guns. and I'll bet it's lower than those caused by drunk driving. and lower still than those caused by drugs...

How many is wounded with guns in the US every year?again, irrisponsibility... and still lower than people who abuse alcohol and drugs... and cars.

How many lives is saved with guns every year?alot more than those lost.

How much does the current gun "culture" cost the health system each year?Very little. there's this thing called GSW... Gun Shot Wound. every health organization that gets someone with this, has to report it to the police. thus anyone injured through ligitamate accidents have nothing to fear... criminals? well they have to resourt to sources outside the health system, thus no cost really.

It seem a lot of people need guns to protect them self! Why?not really. I know alot of people who don't have guns. almost 10x more than those that do. those that do own guns are very responsible with them. even around their children.[/QUOTE]

Why does it seem like the police is not able to protect ordinary people! Why? don't know where you live that gives that impression, but our police protect us just fine. I have no complaints about our fine officers.

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language) :confused:
hope that helps.

For that matter, what's the principal difference between killing someone in self-defense and killing someone in offense? (And don't be smart-alecky and say "the prison sentence".) Each one results in a loss of life. Guns in general were designed for one purpose alone, to kill or injure people, no matter whether they're in the hands of the police or a serial killer, a Marine or a terrorist.Because the person who iniciated the assault does so with full intent to cause harm to another human being while also accepting the chance of harm being done to them. The person killing deffencively is being placed in a "Us or Them" situation against their will, and would prefer not to cause harm to another human being.

The person killing offencively will likely kill again, and the person killing defencively probably wont.

You could continue by saying "guns dont kill people, people dont kill people, BULLETS KILL PEOPLE!!!" :confused:

True though (if sounding a bit like a maniac... :mp5: ), the tool is always going to be around, and if trends increase, is going to get more powerful. We need to focus on the people who use them, not the item itself. i don't recall people calling the pen that wrote mein kampf or the paper it was written on to stand trial.
Come to think of it, the pen has caused far more death than the gun. The bible and Ko'ran have iniciated holy wars and genocide, numerous wars were fought due to the protestant reformation, democratic ideals, and communism. Hell Communists killed more people than all of the USA's wars combined, most of which were 'political' prisoners.

You know what really saddens me? People who don't love freedom. :(

What if noone could posess guns but law enforcement/military?
Yes, that worked so brilliantly in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia and Communist China. :rolleyes:

First they came for the smokers. But I did nothing, because I did not smoke. Then they came for the SUV drivers. But I did nothing, because I did not drive an SUV. Last they came for the gun owners.

Which was stupid, because hey -- we have guns!

Let people have their automatic rifles
Dont let them have the High Capacity magazones, dont let them have the JHP rounds.
1. A thirty-round magazine for the AR-15 rifle isn't "high capacity." It's "full capacity," "design capacity" or "normal capacity." A 100-round CMAG is "high capacity" and if you want to take it from me, you'll get it one round at a time.
2. Why would you ban hollow-point rounds? Are you trying to get innocent bystanders killed? What are you, a sociopath?

You know what really saddens me? People who don't love freedom. :(


Yes, that worked so brilliantly in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Communist Russia and Communist China. :rolleyes: Indeed, we all know that our politicians are crooks and would jump at the chance to solidify their powerbase, which is the primary purpose of the second amendement, to protect against abuses from the government. Home defence from burglars and rapists is a great benifit in the meantime though.

Note: There is no sarcasm in this post.

And a few you might have missed:

1. Talmud: ?If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him.?

2. Roman Catholic: ?Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.? Catechism of the Catholic Church (quoting Thomas Aquinas).

3. The Bible: Luke 22:36 - ?He who has no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.?

4. Exodus 22.2 - ?If a thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so he dies, there shall be no guilt for his death.?
"When a strong man armed keeps his palace, his goods are in peace." Luke 11:21



The Bible contradicts itself, so?


It does not.



there seems to be a lot of talk of guns as tools im having a hard time getting my head round this surely guns only kill/injure (the only argument i see is for hunting which still involves killing the animal) ive never seen a gun used for any other purpose...
You don't watch the Olympics?

Hi

-What would happen if you banned all guns from US territory? All guns, except those carried by Military and Police?

Civil war.


-I would like to know if any of you gun-loving-nut-morrons could tell me?!! (Sorry but I just had to flame you guys...
Why, because you're six-years-old?

Killing = evil.
Wrong. Murder = evil.

You do not seem to realize the cost in money and lives?
No, YOU don't seem to realize the cost of GUN CONTROL in money and lives. :rolleyes:

I think it's very telling that the most comprehensive, well-written responses -- and I could easily find a half-dozen very comprehensive multiparagraph answers in this thread alone -- are written by those who are arguing in favour of freedom. Very telling indeed.

But you can have gunlwas like in Sweden there you are allowed to have guns if you hunt and show that you are responsible also that you can get guns if you join a shooting club and are serius and resonsible.
Sweden has the highest crime rate in the developed world.

Lets compare USA to Denmark.
High crime rates.
Denmark has almost three times the crime rate of the United States.

giving up your wallet is it a trade off for your life?
75 cents of handgun ammo is a much better trade.

Sweden has the highest crime rate in the developed world.
...

Denmark has almost three times the crime rate of the United States. :D :D I'm loveing it! Nothing's more fun than making people swollow their words. Except, maybe, watching them choke on them.

while i like the way you divided the gun owners, i must say that i do not agree with you on all the points



police and military

the police would not need them if the criminals did not have them either.

the military would not need them if were were more willing to solve world problems through diplomacy.

unfortunately, most of this is not the case, which is why the military should be allowed to have them and the police should be able to have a few. very few.



ridiculous.

i find forms of entertainment that do not involve wanton violence and slaughter of harmless animals, why can't you?

you say video games are bad, yet you take your kid out the woods to blow small creatures to smithereens? :rolleyes:



and it would not be such a dangerous world if there were no guns in it.

My friend, you need to travel to Afrika (yes, AfriKa, its how its spelled dammit) or Eastern Europe sometime. You will see firsthand how royally screwed we would be if there werent people who fought and died for your rights to say the things you do. I did, you wouldnt imagine the kind of things they taught schoolchildren in Poland under the Soviet Union.

Do you really want to be on good diplomatic terms with Iran? I dont, their government just tortured a Canadian citizen to death, pulled her fingernails and raped her. Solve that one diplomatically.

I am a gun owner as I have already stated. I own, many, many guns. I enjoy shooting them a great deal. And, when you singlehandedly disarm all the criminals, I will give up the guns that I keep for protection. I will never give up my hunting and target guns. Shooting a target is not a violent act like you posted. It requires breath control, muscle coordination, intense concentration and hours and hours of practice. Its like saying hitting a baseball with a bat is a violent act. It isnt.

You also referred to hunting as brutal and wanton. Unless you are vegan you cannot claim any kind of moral superiority, because cattle are deliberately put through pain while they are killed; an acid in the adrenaline makes the meat more tender. Deer meat does not have this quality, if the hunter is as capable as his rifle it is *pop* *thump*. Hunting incedentally is also both necessary and beneficial to the environment. Human beings, like it or not, live on this planet. We are natural predators and I will not be flamed for going back to my roots three times a year. How is hunting beneficial you ask? Simple. %90 of the wildlife refuges in North America are payed for by hunters. Hunters that have pets, wildlife calendars, and happen to like the taste of venison.

By the way, am I a moron for owning and enjoying guns? Maybe you should look deep inside yourself and ask why you would generalize so many people from so many different walks of life as "rednecks". Just think about it, its all I ask.

For the record guns do not nor have they every killed a man the only thing that kills ppl is death and that is a proven fact. :mp5:

Agreed that nukes are allowed.

But the Second Amendment provides no basis for a right to self-defense. (It does not protect an individual right to possess and use firearms, either. But I recognize most in this thread will disagree with that.)


That's right, the right to self defense falls under the ninth ammendment, which states that all rights not contained in the constitution or in a state law cannot be infringed, the right to self defense falls under that heading.

There appear to be a couple of minor points in the Bible you missed:

Thou shalt not kill.

Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


But Jesus also said that "if a man hath not a sword let him sell his cloak and buy one." Even the son of God above believed in the right to self defense.

I suggest that noone try to mix politics with religion, it always ends badly. :rolleyes:

Ban guns?
Why?
Chicago has a gun ban for civilians and we still have people shot on the street. :rolleyes: You're better off with vigilantes trying to protect everyone then just leaving defense SOLELY to police. (they obviously are not succeeding)

Just thought I'd throw this at you.



Remember his police? In case you forgot the Schutzstaffel, who's chief was named Reichfürher Heinrich Himmler, they were responsible for the roundup and execution of six million plus Jews, Slavs, and Christians, and many others. I wonder what would've happened if the civilian populus had firearms?


Warsaw, that's what would have happened. In the ghetto of Warsaw, Poland a handful of men armed with pistols and a couple of grenades held off the first SS troops come to take them away, when the first troops were driven off, they got the SS's guns and used them to hold off an entire panzer regiment for nearly a whole month, before being starved out and overrun. If the civilians had firearms Babi-Yar never would have happened, at Babi-Yar, in case you don't know, the SS spent 72 hours killing jews in job lots, there were at least two badly wounded men who survived and escaped, one of them said that no one had guns, not a single illegal one, because they truly believed that a good productive german citizen didn't need such things, that only hoodlums needed them.

I suggest that noone try to mix politics with religion, it always ends badly. :rolleyes:


Too late. I am supporting my argument with a rebuttal from his own book, he says that Jesus said turn the other cheek, well yeah he did, then he said if you're unarmed, arm yourself even if you must go naked to do so.

You do not know me, so why do you feel you can insult me?

Anyway,
Recent in your opinion is 2003, two years ago.
Should I be impressed you own 110 guns? or that you are yet to shoot anyone?
The question is why do you feel the need to own these guns?
You carry them every day, Why do you feel so threatened that you feel the need to do this? (unless you are in Law enforcement/military)
You ask us to stay out of your problems. i take it that you do see gun ownership as a problem then.

Most World citizens appreciate the cost and efforts made by those that went to war. You, infer that the US was the only and/or the best fighter in both world wars. Also most participants in the fight were taught to use guns only just before going to war.

Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, think of it as pro-active life insurance.

Warsaw, that's what would have happened. In the ghetto of Warsaw, Poland a handful of men armed with pistols and a couple of grenades held off the first SS troops come to take them away, when the first troops were driven off, they got the SS's guns and used them to hold off an entire panzer regiment for nearly a whole month, before being starved out and overrun. If the civilians had firearms Babi-Yar never would have happened, at Babi-Yar, in case you don't know, the SS spent 72 hours killing jews in job lots, there were at least two badly wounded men who survived and escaped, one of them said that no one had guns, not a single illegal one, because they truly believed that a good productive german citizen didn't need such things, that only hoodlums needed them.
Actually, the Germans were unable to defeat the Jews in combat -- they had to burn the city to the ground to quell their fearless resistance.

I suggest that noone try to mix politics with religion, it always ends badly. :rolleyes:
An excellent point. I have a religious imperative to take reasonable precautions to preserve human life; therefore, gun control infringes upon my right to the free exercise of my Christian religion.

I have a few IMPORTANT questions:

Are you not 10 times more likely to kill a familiy member than a theif, if you have a gun in your home?

How many crimes are commited with guns in the US every year?

How many crimes is prevented with guns every year?

How many is killed with guns every year?

How many is wounded with guns in the US every year?

How many lives is saved with guns every year?

How much does the current gun "culture" cost the healt system each year?

It seem a lot of people need guns to protect them self! Why?

Why does it seem like the police is not able to protect ordinary people! Why?

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language) :confused:


The "ten times" statistic only holds up when you include abusive husbands and the like that have been shot in self defense, as a criminal not as a case of mistaken identity.

Approximately 2 thousand murders, not sure about other crimes, might be wrong on murders, last data I have was for like 1996

Approximately 2 million times a year

Approximately 5 thousand

A few tens of thousands

Unknown, no way to prove your life was saved, most likely over 1 hundred thousand

Very little, legal gun owners are more likely to avoid conflict and as such may even save the health system money

Because the police don't have to, and can't

Not enough cops for one, for another they are not required to by law

Actually, the Germans were unable to defeat the Jews in combat -- they had to burn the city to the ground to quell their fearless resistance.


My mistake, I haven't read about it in a long time. Either way, the jews, the "inferior Juden", beat a whole panzer regiment for nearly a month, they kicked hitlers ass up around his ears.

My mistake, I haven't read about it in a long time. Either way, the jews, the "inferior Juden", beat a whole panzer regiment for nearly a month, they kicked hitlers ass up around his ears. Gotta love them Jews.

Ich bin ein Juden, well we were, before my great to the whatever grandparents converted in the face of the inquisition. Damn you Spain, and your corrupt Inquisition!!

Gotta love them Jews.
God's Chosen People, indeed. :)

I want to see people start to get speared with crossbows. Or throwing darts.

There have actually been quite a few reports of crossbows being used for self defense in South Africa since they banned guns


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/03/17/south.africa.guns.reut/

OHANNESBURG, South Africa (Reuters) -- Tighter gun ownership laws are pushing South Africans to buy crossbows, spears, swords, knives and pepper sprays to protect themselves from violent crime.

"We've had to build an entirely new shop because the demand from people is so great," Justin Willmers, owner of Durban Guns and Ammo, told Reuters. "It can be anything from a Zulu fighting spear, battle axes, swords, crossbows."

New gun controls came into force last year under South Africa's Firearms Control Act, but some weapons shop owners say high crime rates are pushing law abiding citizens to look for alternative means of defending themselves.

Despite official figures showing the murder rate falling 10 percent in the year to March 2004, South Africa's Arms and Ammunition Dealers Association says individuals face a one in 60 chance of being the victim of a violent crime in any given year.

Many houses are surrounded by razor wire and electric fences, but with police turning down 80 percent of firearms licence requests after an 18-month application process, association spokesman Alex Holmes said people were forced to look at other options.

"It's not really a matter of choice," Holmes said. "Licensed firearms are not used in crime at any great rate."

Estimates of the number of illegal firearms in South Africa vary between 1 million and 4 million, he said, but the real problem is from 30,000 to 40,000 hardcore criminals using a small number of illegal guns.

South Africa began a firearms amnesty on January 1 that to date has netted some 13,000 weapons, officials told Reuters, but critics say most of the weapons handed in are old and would never have been used for crime.

"It's mostly been grannies and grandpas that are handing in weapons that are probably unusable anyhow," Willmers said. In the meantime, people from all walks of life are acquiring weapons not restricted by law.

"The guys have just had enough," Willmers said.

Men are buying machetes to fight off hijackers or crossbows to shoot people breaking into their property, while women are more likely to buy a pepper spray, he said.

One customer successfully fought off three hijackers with a machete, slashing one, he said. A beggar had bought a pepper spray so he could fight off those who tried to steal his shoes as he slept on the street.

With some homeowners worried about prosecution if they kill intruders, the crossbow is particularly popular because of its silence and the difficulty of tracing the firer from forensic evidence, he said.

With no legal restrictions on sales, weapons shop staff had to exercise judgment in who they sold to, Willmers said


There you go.

Hi

Thx for all the replies. I am glad for all the good ansewers, most where both edcational and entertaining.

1) This is not personal.

2) This is my oppinion.

3) You might disaprove... but I dont care :D

4) I think almost any civilized person would disaprove with most of the US argumentation for gun-ownership. Even a child would be able to point out fatal flaws and obvious faults in you argumentation. The price is more than 10.000 dead citizens every single year. Countless victims of crimes :headbang: I know some of you are responseble & nice people. You are obviously not the problem. But some of you still refuse to be part of the solution.

Harry "the Bastard" (English is not my native language)

I quoted Miller verbatim. Not attempts to gloss over it by third-hand comentators. What the case actually said is a bit more important than what some pro-gun parties would like it to say.

I read your quote. It was an amalgam of bits and pieces from various sources.

You ignored all 3 of my arguments. Including the opinions of the ABA, Chief Justice Burger and Judge Robert Bork.

In the history of our republic, no court has ever struck down any gun control legislation -- including bans on handguns -- as violating the Second Amendment. The issue has been decided by scores of courts over at least 150 years. You are pissing in the wind of history.

When you actually want to discuss the matter intelligently rather than cut-and-paste from a website without discussing my arguments, we can proceed.

In the meantime, my arguments stand.
You quoted Miller verbatim but that doesn't mean anything. My quote actually analyzed the portions of Miller that at all apply to your arguement. It also provides some intersting backround on the supreme court case or can you not read?



The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=17] )

Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.

The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! Miller was murdered in April of 1939 (one month before the Court's decision). After the decision, Layton pleaded guilty to transporting a sawed-off shotgun, and received five year's probation. [http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html] ) And so even though the case had been remanded, it was never tried in the lower courts.

Again, nothing about collectivist rights at all. The ABA has already been shown to be incredibly baised politically. As for your friend Warren Burger:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfra.html


Warren Burger's Fraud

"[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
--- Former Chief Justice Warren Burger, The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, December 16, 1991

The late Supreme Court Justice Warren Burger also wrote about the Second Amendment in Parade magazine (Jan. 14, 1990). The Chief Justice cites no evidence to back his claims. None of the points and evidence displayed on these pages is refuted by his article.

His article can be found here : http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

and Attorney David Kopel's refutation can be found here : http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/crburger.htm

As for Bork, he really can't argue to being an Constitutional Originalist since he obviously has not read any literature of the time concerning the 2nd amendment.


Well,that's two out of three arguments, as for the third, no case directly concerning the 2nd amendment has yet been heard one way or the other concerning the constitutionality of the gun laws. Until such happens, however, the matter is still very much in the air, which if you were really so involved in law, you would know.

You quoted Miller verbatim but that doesn't mean anything. My quote actually analyzed the portions of Miller that at all apply to your arguement. It also provides some intersting backround on the supreme court case or can you not read?

So, Miller does not mean what it expressly says because someone from guncites.com says so. Very persuasive. :rolleyes:

The case expressly says the Second Amendment is designed to protect state militias and must be interpreted with that purpose in mind. The Court directly rejected the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Yes, you can find many revisionists who try to re-write the case. That means nothing. It says what it says.

And subsequent courts have correctly interpreted what it says for the last 66 years.


Again, nothing about collectivist rights at all. The ABA has already been shown to be incredibly baised politically. As for your friend Warren Burger:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndfra.html

His article can be found here : http://www.guncite.com/burger.html

and Attorney David Kopel's refutation can be found here : http://i2i.org/SuptDocs/Crime/crburger.htm

As for Bork, he really can't argue to being an Constitutional Originalist since he obviously has not read any literature of the time concerning the 2nd amendment.

So, the ABA is biased and their scholarship can simply be ignored (but guncite and David Kopel are authoritative.) :rolleyes: Perhaps the ABA knows a tad more about the subject than you do?

Chief Justice Burger is also wrong and can be disregarded because guncite and David Kopel says so. I don't recall when David Kopel served as a judge anywhere -- let alone the Supreme Court -- but he must be awfully well-qualified. :rolleyes:

And Judge Bork -- usually a hero of the right -- is wrong .... well, just because he disagrees with you.

Well,that's two out of three arguments, as for the third, no case directly concerning the 2nd amendment has yet been heard one way or the other concerning the constitutionality of the gun laws. Until such happens, however, the matter is still very much in the air, which if you were really so involved in law, you would know.

ROFLASTC "no case directly concerning the 2nd Amendment has yet been heard"? Are you insane or just utterly ill-informed? As I have them handy I'll post the 67 cases I have summarized re gun control -- most of which include direct 2nd Amendment claims.

Ironic, that many of your fellow right-wingers and gun-lovers denounce me for being a lawyer (the horror, the horror), you doubt that I am. I don't really care, me boyo, whether you believe me or not. I am nonetheless a lawyer who has worked on 2nd Amenmdent litigation at the federal appellate level.

Regardless, you may have noted that the ABA (who are just a little "involved in the law") made the same statement as I about the Second Amendment.

And I note you've still only responded to 1 of my 3 original arguments. What's the matter? Doesn't guncite address them for you?

Please read this article: http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

I hope some of the facts and statistics presented here will open some eyes.

I would also like to point out that one of the US's biggest gun bans, the Brady Bill (Assault Weapons Ban), was not renewed after the sunset clause ended the ill conceived law's life last September. It would seem that this much toted gun ban was very ineffective in view of the facts. I am very much against crime and the taking of human life for no reason, but there is a point when people need to come to grips with the true reasons for crime which can be traced back to the criminal and not any inanimate object used in the crime.

no actually, everyone i get into this argument with elsewhere seems to think that this is the second amendment in its entirety: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

they seem to not understand the part where a private militia made up of civilians is no longer needed to defend the states. the national guard serves that purpose.

or rather, it would serve that purpose, except for the part where they are all in iraq instead of defending us here :rolleyes:


But the first part gives the States the right to have their own Militias, which is why there are many in Michigan that participate in the Militia. It is our American given rights to form this group. No one will ever be able to take that away, if they do then I pity them.

Again, try to keep up. That argument has been raised only about a couple dozen times already in this thread.


In the 18 pages of results that were posted prior to my question, no such thing was brought up. Please try to keep your threads in proper order thanks

Wow. How many pages did you have to go to dig this out-of-context?

Try to keep up with developments.

You said it and it was not taken out of context, do try to keep up will ya with everything you post. Really getting annoying to have you try to flip things off because they do not fit into your mold.

Would anyone care to explain why "handgun crime" went up in the UK after handguns were banned there?

Handgun Crimes Rise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm)


Would anyone care to explain why gun crime is on the rise in the UK despite strict gun control laws?


Home Office on Gun Crimes (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/)


Would anybody care to explain why England is more "crime ridden" than the US despite their restrictions on firearms?

Gun Control's Twisted Outcome (http://www.reason.com/0211/fe.jm.gun.shtml)


Can somebody explain to me how the people using these "evil guns" are hurting anybody else?

Cowboy Action Shooting Competition (http://www.kimandbarrymckenzie.com/Videos/TenCammyStump%20Stage%208.wmv)

So, Miller does not mean what it expressly says because someone from guncites.com says so. Very persuasive. :rolleyes:

The case expressly says the Second Amendment is designed to protect state militias and must be interpreted with that purpose in mind. The Court directly rejected the position that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms. Yes, you can find many revisionists who try to re-write the case. That means nothing. It says what it says.

Are you ignoring your own Miller quote here? It does not say that. As I previously stated the court only said that the weapon in question had to be useful as a state milita weapon, not that the owners of said weapon had to be active in the state militia. If I had to guess from what little about the weapon in question is noted in the courts decision I would say that the weapon was at the least was a breach barrel and probably was a side by side. Unsure on that however. If it was a breach barrel that would severely limit it's use in a combat situation. Now, if it were pump-action or an auto-shotgun it would be useful in a combat situation and they could have argued it when it was remanded to the lower courts. However, as I stated one of the two defendants had already been killed a month earlier. Collectivist mantra is argued nowhere in the decision even though that was the case that the US brought against the two defendants in the supreme court. A bit telling, don't you think?

37 million dead can't be wrong!

ROFLASTC "no case directly concerning the 2nd Amendment has yet been heard"? Are you insane or just utterly ill-informed? As I have them handy I'll post the 67 cases I have summarized re gun control -- most of which include direct 2nd Amendment claims.

Firstly, I meant no United States Supreme Court case has directly decided the issue. Which essentially means that any amount of prior court decisions can be swept away. The USSC does not base it's decisions on precedent, instead it looks at the time period the constitution was written. Given that the literature of the time period and directly following the time period most certainly defends the individual rights position.

In the 18 pages of results that were posted prior to my question, no such thing was brought up. Please try to keep your threads in proper order thanks

Really?

Try http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8513317&postcount=96

Several pages of discussion of Nazi Germany follow that post.

Would anyone care to explain why gun crime is on the rise in the UK despite strict gun control laws?

Home Office on Gun Crimes (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime/guncrime/)
From the above article you just linked to:

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

- a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
- a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

Oops? :eek:

Are you ignoring your own Miller quote here? It does not say that. As I previously stated the court only said that the weapon in question had to be useful as a state milita weapon, not that the owners of said weapon had to be active in the state militia. If I had to guess from what little about the weapon in question is noted in the courts decision I would say that the weapon was at the least was a breach barrel and probably was a side by side. Unsure on that however. If it was a breach barrel that would severely limit it's use in a combat situation. Now, if it were pump-action or an auto-shotgun it would be useful in a combat situation and they could have argued it when it was remanded to the lower courts. However, as I stated one of the two defendants had already been killed a month earlier. Collectivist mantra is argued nowhere in the decision even though that was the case that the US brought against the two defendants in the supreme court. A bit telling, don't you think?

Firstly, I meant no United States Supreme Court case has directly decided the issue. Which essentially means that any amount of prior court decisions can be swept away. The USSC does not base it's decisions on precedent, instead it looks at the time period the constitution was written. Given that the literature of the time period and directly following the time period most certainly defends the individual rights position.

1. You still have not responded to 2 of my original 3 arguments. You also failed to respond to most of my last post. I am keeping track.

2. "The USSC does not base it's decisions on precedent ..." I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Stare decisis plays a routine and fundamental role in Supreme Court decisions. Do a bit more homework.

3. Over the last 150 years or so there have been scores of US Court of Appeals decisions rejecting the individual rights view of the Second Amendment. Most have appealed to the US Supreme Court. The Court has never saw a need to correct the prevailing law of the land. (To the contrary, the Court has favorably cited Miller as denying the existence of an individual right.)

4. Your misreading of Miller is contradicted by scores of opinions by US Courts of Appeals (not to mention countless US district court and state decisions) specifically reading Miller as rejecting an individual rights view of the Second Amendment in favor of a state's right to militias.

5. You completely misunderstand the meaning of militia as set forth in Miller. You have a First Amendment right to assembly. The Second Amendment does nothing to protect these little private groups that call themselves militias. Neither such "militias" nor their firearms are protected by the Second Amendment.

I'll try once again to spoonfeed Miller to you in my next post.

I'll also post some caselaw in my subsequent posts and you can try to explain how and why the Supreme Court and the US Courts of Appeals have all misunderstood the Second Amendment for the entire history of our Republic.

From the above article you just linked to:

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

- a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
- a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

Oops? :eek:


That's for 2004 only....you missed this part.

"Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it."

Cat Tribe: I'm no lawyer, but having read the Miller decision, I don't find your Collective-Rights argument persuasive (thanks for posting the actual case-cite, though, both you and Armed Bookworms.)
I do see an interesting thread on that, though: the Collective Right view could be applied as easily to the First and Fourth amendments as the Second, if you parse by sentence structure and what is actually said-effectively, the "People's" right to freedom of speech, Peacable Assembly, the Press, and freedom from searches of papers and property could be argued as belonging only to the "Collective" people-ie the Government. This would be consistent with your logic regarding the Second Amendment.

Further, if we rely solely on prior case law, then the 1964 Civil Rights act is a violation of the Constitution's tenth and thirteenth amendments-based on the case law that upheld Jim Crow, or the Dredd Scott decision that upheld the rights of slaveowners.

Precedent, then, is not evidence of either justice, or constitutionality, it's evidence of a Judge or lawyer seeking to pass on and thereby avoid making a decision based on the merits of the case before him or her.

Particularly if that Judge is likely to be unpopular with his fellow ABA members as a result.

As a tax-payer, I'm a bit annoyed when our legal system relies on precedent instead of judgement, in rendering judgements that affect, either directly or indirectly, my life, and what is available within it.

Cat Tribe: I'm no lawyer, but having read the Miller decision, I don't find your Collective-Rights argument persuasive (thanks for posting the actual case-cite, though, both you and Armed Bookworms.)
I do see an interesting thread on that, though: the Collective Right view could be applied as easily to the First and Fourth amendments as the Second, if you parse by sentence structure and what is actually said-effectively, the "People's" right to freedom of speech, Peacable Assembly, the Press, and freedom from searches of papers and property could be argued as belonging only to the "Collective" people-ie the Government. This would be consistent with your logic regarding the Second Amendment.

Further, if we rely solely on prior case law, then the 1964 Civil Rights act is a violation of the Constitution's tenth and thirteenth amendments-based on the case law that upheld Jim Crow, or the Dredd Scott decision that upheld the rights of slaveowners.

Precedent, then, is not evidence of either justice, or constitutionality, it's evidence of a Judge or lawyer seeking to pass on and thereby avoid making a decision based on the merits of the case before him or her.

Particularly if that Judge is likely to be unpopular with his fellow ABA members as a result.

As a tax-payer, I'm a bit annoyed when our legal system relies on precedent instead of judgement, in rendering judgements that affect, either directly or indirectly, my life, and what is available within it.

I will shortly post a further discussion of Miller and other caselaw.

The other Amendments do not have a corollary to the "well-regulated militia" clause. Language in the Constitution is not superfluous. How do you explain that language?

Courts do not blindly follow precedent. Lower courts must, of course, follow the precedent of higher courts. None of the US Courts of Appeals is bound by a decision of another US Court of Appeals, however. And a court can modify or overturn its own prior precedent. Courts simply do not do so without good reason. Prior decisions are presumed to be correct. This is both more efficient and adds stability to the law.

The idea that a court should decide each individual case before it without regard to precedent would lead to judicial chaos. You and a neighbor may have similar situations but receive different decisions merely because you had different judges. Courts would have to decide every legal issue from scratch every time it came up -- no matter how many times the exact same issue had been decided by the same court and even if no new arguments were raised.

What happens when a court is faced with an issue is it looks whether it has decided the exact same issue before. If it has, the court looks at whether there are any new arguments, developments, etc. that would cause it to change it's prior decision. Applying the prior decision to the new case at hand involves, of course, looking at whether the individual facts of the new case are the same as the prior case. If the facts are different, the court must look at whether the difference in facts matter. If a court faces a legal issue that is similar to a prior issue, it will look to its prior decision (with all the other steps I've discussed) for guidance. So, each case does get decided invidually. But the courts do not try to re-invent the wheel on every issue in every new case. That would be absurd.

Your argument about the Civil Rights Act is wrong for multiple historical reasons I won't go into. The point I think you are trying to make is better illustrated by Brown v. Board of Education in which the Supreme Court directly rejected and overturned its prior precedent of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson. As I have noted, that is an exception to the general rule and illustrates that the courts do overturn bad precedent.

Are you ignoring your own Miller quote here? It does not say that. As I previously stated the court only said that the weapon in question had to be useful as a state milita weapon, not that the owners of said weapon had to be active in the state militia. If I had to guess from what little about the weapon in question is noted in the courts decision I would say that the weapon was at the least was a breach barrel and probably was a side by side. Unsure on that however. If it was a breach barrel that would severely limit it's use in a combat situation. Now, if it were pump-action or an auto-shotgun it would be useful in a combat situation and they could have argued it when it was remanded to the lower courts. However, as I stated one of the two defendants had already been killed a month earlier. Collectivist mantra is argued nowhere in the decision even though that was the case that the US brought against the two defendants in the supreme court. A bit telling, don't you think?

OK.

Let's go over Miller and the few other relevant Supreme Court cases.

United States v. Miller (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html), 307 U.S. 174 (1939):

Defendants were charged with the crime of transporting and possessing an unregistered sawed off shotgun, in violation of the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C.A. § 1132, et seq. They challenged the indictment and the trial court sustained the demurrer, dismissing the charges. Id. at 177. The government appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court, holding the Second Amendment provided defendants no protection against the indictment. After reviewing the language and history of the Second Amendment, the Court concluded that the “obvious purpose” of the Second Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia. Id. at 178. Because defendants had offered no evidence that their possession or use of the shotgun had “some reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,” their conduct was not protected by the Second Amendment. Id.

BTW, you can "interpret" this case however you like but it flat out says the purpose of the Second Amendment was for the state militia and it should be interpreted accordingly.

Because you ignore what Miller actually says, let’s look at it:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

This clearly states that, unless "possession or use" of a weapon has "some reasonable relationship to to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," then the 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear such a weapon. It does not hinge on whether the firearm was of a type used by the military, but on whether the possession or use of such of a weapon is reasonably related to preservation of a well-regulated militia. In other words, if preservation of a well-regulated militia required that the defendant possess the shotgun, then the Second Amendment comes into play.

Similarly, Miller says:

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

This clearly states the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militias and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

The Court then turns to a discussion of the history of state militias. The Court states that, in the Constitution (emphasis added):

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress.

The Court in Miller is crystal clear that the “well-regulated militia” which the Second Amendment protects are the militias which the “States are expect to maintain and train.”

But you do not have to take my word for it, you can take the US Supreme Court’s own description of Miller in Lewis v. United States (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/445/55.html), 445 U.S. 55 (1980):

Defendant Lewis was convicted in state court of a felony violation which was never overturned and for which he did not receive a pardon. Subsequently, he was charged under a section of the federal Omnibus Control and Safe Streets Act (then codified at 26 U.S.C. § 1202(a)(1)), which makes it a crime for a convicted felon to knowingly receive, possess or transport a firearm. Lewis challenged the federal conviction, alleging his prior state conviction was constitutionally invalid. The District Court convicted Lewis and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and held Lewis could not raise the constitutionality of the prior conviction as a defense to the new crime and the absence of such a defense from the federal law did not render that law violative of any constitutional protections. Id. at 65.

The Court ruled that restrictions contained in the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibiting felons from owning firearms were constitutional under a rational basis standard. The Court noted:

These legislative restrictions on the use of firearms are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties. See United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939) (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

445 U.S. at 65-66 (emphasis added).

Other relevant Supreme Court decisions:

Burton v. Sills (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/394/812.html), 394 U.S. 812 (1968):

In Burton, the Court dismissed a gun owner's appeal (supported by the gun-lobby), for want of a substantial federal question, of a New Jersey Supreme Court's 1968 holding that the state's gun control laws did not violate the Second Amendment, because the Second Amendment permits regulation of firearms "so long as the regulation does not impair the active, organized militias of the states." Adopting the narrow view of the Second Amendment, the New Jersey court found that the state's licensing requirements for manufacturers, wholesalers, and retail dealers, as well as permit and identification card requirements for purchasers, did "not impair the maintenance of the State's active organized militia" and thus were "not at all in violation of either the terms or purposes of the second amendment."

Miller v. Texas (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/153/535.html), 153 U.S. 535 (1894):

Dismissed defendant’s post-conviction challenge to a Texas law prohibiting the carrying of a dangerous weapon on a public street. Defendant sought review by the Supreme Court on several grounds, including that the Texas law denied him the “privileges and immunities of citizenship” because it violated his alleged Second Amendment “right to bear arms.” Id at 538. The Court held the Second Amendment had no application to the challenged state proceedings because the amendment constrains only the federal government and has no “reference whatever to proceedings in state courts.” Id.

Presser v. Illinois (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/116/252.html), 116 U.S. 252 (1886):

Presser was indicted in Illinois state court for violating those sections of the state law making it a misdemeanor for any body of men to associate as a military company of organization, except as part of the organized state militia, unless they obtain a license from the Governor. Presser moved to quash the indictment, alleging that the laws at issue violated numerous constitutional provisions, including the Second Amendment. After the state courts denied his challenge, he sought review in the Supreme Court.

Relying on U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the Court rejected Presser’s Second Amendment challenge on the grounds that the Second Amendment constrains only federal action and had no applicability to the state law at issue. The Court also rejected Presser’s claim that the state law denied him the “privilege and immunities” of citizenship because it prevented him from associating with others as an unorganized militia. Presser, 116 U.S. at 267. In addressing this issue, the Court specifically held that “military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers.” Id. at 267.

I will shortly post a further discussion of Miller and other caselaw.

The other Amendments do not have a corollary to the "well-regulated militia" clause. Language in the Constitution is not superfluous. How do you explain that language?

Courts do not blindly follow precedent. Lower courts must, of course, follow the precedent of higher courts. None of the US Courts of Appeals is bound by a decision of another US Court of Appeals, however. And a court can modify or overturn its own prior precedent. Courts simply do not do so without good reason. Prior decisions are presumed to be correct. This is both more efficient and adds stability to the law.

The idea that a court should decide each individual case before it without regard to precedent would lead to judicial chaos. You and a neighbor may have similar situations but receive different decisions merely because you had different judges. Courts would have to decide every legal issue from scratch every time it came up -- no matter how many times the exact same issue had been decided by the same court and even if no new arguments were raised.

What happens when a court is faced with an issue is it looks whether it has decided the exact same issue before. If it has, the court looks at whether there are any new arguments, developments, etc. that would cause it to change it's prior decision. Applying the prior decision to the new case at hand involves, of course, looking at whether the individual facts of the new case are the same as the prior case. If the facts are different, the court must look at whether the difference in facts matter. If a court faces a legal issue that is similar to a prior issue, it will look to its prior decision (with all the other steps I've discussed) for guidance. So, each case does get decided invidually. But the courts do not try to re-invent the wheel on every issue in every new case. That would be absurd.

Your argument about the Civil Rights Act is wrong for multiple historical reasons I won't go into. The point I think you are trying to make is better illustrated by Brown v. Board of Education in which the Supreme Court directly rejected and overturned its prior precedent of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson. As I have noted, that is an exception to the general rule and illustrates that the courts do overturn bad precedent.


Well, the portion "A well Regulated Militia..." taken in relevant historical context was meant to refer to one that is well armed, and skilled, "Well Regulated". This is followed by a comma, indicating it is meant to illustrate the reason for the next bit, which reads "The right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Now, at the time, the word "States" would have sufficed for support of state-militias, indeed, the tenth amendment points out a division between the several states, and the people. Given that documents were hand-written at that time, and the sheer time spent in argument in the Philadephia location, why was the term "The People" chosen over "The States" in the Second Amendment?

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I don't think my education in English sentence-structure was all that bad, and several of those representatives were Writers and Editors. There was definitely a separation between the rights of the several states, and the rights of the individual citizens ("The People") involved here in several of the Amendments.
Based on Miller, a sawed-off shotgun has no utility in the Militia function. THis is probably true,as it was popular to cut-down folding shotguns to pistol length-and those aren't worth much in a Militia, despite what the trench-gunners would claim.

It can be argued that a Thompson Submachinegun has great value in a Militia (as does an M-60, M-2HB, Assault rifle...), provided the possessor qualifies as a member of it. A lot depends then, on your definition of the Militia (which is why I asked if anyone had a cite to the 18USC that defines what, exactly, the federal definition of the militia actually entails.)

Now, I'm a bit rusty, but I seem to recall something about there being the "organized" militia, and the "Unorganized" militia. I also seem to recall that the State Militias have been Federalized since sometime around 1942 or so. If that is the case, then the second amendment, per your definition, no longer applies at all-because there IS NO STATE MILITIA for it to apply to.
In which case, we have fifty-some-odd violations of the constitution (one for each state in the Union), since those states no longer have control over their militias, making them effectively deprived of their rights.

If you broaden it to only include groups of armed men who drill, then you have another problem-because the definition then applies to groups you and I would agree are not a good idea. The L.A. Crips could claim to be a 'People's Militia', as could the skinhead scumbags in Idaho, who could actually point to their use of drill and practice.

"The People" in the Constitution either applies to the Citizens, or it does not.

That's for 2004 only....you missed this part.

"Even so, we have seen an unacceptable rise in gun crime over recent years, and are doing everything we can to tackle it."
I did see that but the fact remains that firearm deaths were down as were robberies for 2004, which is still an improvement towards the stated goal?

Well, the portion "A well Regulated Militia..." taken in relevant historical context was meant to refer to one that is well armed, and skilled, "Well Regulated". This is followed by a comma, indicating it is meant to illustrate the reason for the next bit, which reads "The right of the people to keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Now, at the time, the word "States" would have sufficed for support of state-militias, indeed, the tenth amendment points out a division between the several states, and the people. Given that documents were hand-written at that time, and the sheer time spent in argument in the Philadephia location, why was the term "The People" chosen over "The States" in the Second Amendment?

Now, I'm no lawyer, but I don't think my education in English sentence-structure was all that bad, and several of those representatives were Writers and Editors. There was definitely a separation between the rights of the several states, and the rights of the individual citizens ("The People") involved here in several of the Amendments.
Based on Miller, a sawed-off shotgun has no utility in the Militia function. THis is probably true,as it was popular to cut-down folding shotguns to pistol length-and those aren't worth much in a Militia, despite what the trench-gunners would claim.

It can be argued that a Thompson Submachinegun has great value in a Militia (as does an M-60, M-2HB, Assault rifle...), provided the possessor qualifies as a member of it. A lot depends then, on your definition of the Militia (which is why I asked if anyone had a cite to the 18USC that defines what, exactly, the federal definition of the militia actually entails.)

Now, I'm a bit rusty, but I seem to recall something about there being the "organized" militia, and the "Unorganized" militia. I also seem to recall that the State Militias have been Federalized since sometime around 1942 or so. If that is the case, then the second amendment, per your definition, no longer applies at all-because there IS NO STATE MILITIA for it to apply to.
In which case, we have fifty-some-odd violations of the constitution (one for each state in the Union), since those states no longer have control over their militias, making them effectively deprived of their rights.

If you broaden it to only include groups of armed men who drill, then you have another problem-because the definition then applies to groups you and I would agree are not a good idea. The L.A. Crips could claim to be a 'People's Militia', as could the skinhead scumbags in Idaho, who could actually point to their use of drill and practice.

"The People" in the Constitution either applies to the Citizens, or it does not.

The Second Amendment either applies as a whole or it does not. One cannot simply dismiss the fact that the first clause limits the meaning of the second.

The Court in Miller did not simply say that the weapon in question was not of a type used by the military. It said that the individual possession of such a weapon did not further the Militia, so it was not protected by the Second Amendment. It then discussed at length how the Militia was the state militia.

The federalization of state militias is subject to another set of caselaw. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Regardless, that is an issue of whether each state's Second Amendment rights was violated or not. It does nothing to protect an individual right.

When the people are part of a well-regulated state militia, they are protected in their right to keep and bear arms. But the right to maintain a militia is a state right. As the right of "the people" is contingent on the state right, the right to keep and bear arms is effectively a state right.

So far it seems that the anti-gun protestors are losing the argument:

Guns kill people.
People kill people.

Guns kill at a distance.
A bow or crossbow can also kill at a distance (most guns used at fairly close range).

We need more gun laws.
Many worthwhile numbers and statistics have shown that in GB and Australia crime skyrocketed after their widespread gun bans.

The police and military are the only ones who need guns.
Will the police always be there when someone is robbed or attacked?

If guns were banned we would all be safe.
Wrong. Only criminals would have guns and besides not only guns are used to hurt people.

And finally some more of my own thoughts:

If for some reason a nation were ever invaded in which many citizens owned guns then the invaders would not only have to fight the military and police they would also have to fight many armed citizens as well. Such a thing could stall the invaders and allow more help to arrive. We of Pahpahpolis stand for such things as this to help keep our country free.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

You're going to spoonfeed me Miller eh? Let us look at the Miller text you posted.


A grand total of three sentences reference the states at all.


Sentence one: reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Sentence two:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

Sentence three: Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms.


On the other hand, directly supporting the individual view as long as said weapon would be useful as a militia weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Where exactly does it say that if the weapon was useful to the common defense the states would have any right to take it away? I want to know, since you seem to think it does. Now as I stated, if it was a shotgun that you break open to load, it would have very limited common defense uses. On the other hand if it was a pump or auto shotgun it would have had plenty of use for the common defense, especially in urban fighting.

. Why do people get away with multiple homicides, especially in schools? Because no one has the ability to defend themselves. The only armed people in schools are the rent-a-cops, a lot of good they do, huh?


I teach. The idea of multiple fire arms in my school scares the crap out of me. I guess I'll take my chances of someone tackling a shooter and having limited guns spraying bullets over multiple good sameratins also spraying bullets doubling my chances of being shot.
Just a smart ass aside, cause I love this one....Have you ever seen a drive by stabbing?

The Second Amendment either applies as a whole or it does not. One cannot simply dismiss the fact that the first clause limits the meaning of the second.

On a side note, do you know basic grammar?


A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.

Basic grammar lesson here. Is the first is the first clause dependent on the second, or is the second clause dependant on the first? Think carefully, it might be hard.

The Second Amendment either applies as a whole or it does not. One cannot simply dismiss the fact that the first clause limits the meaning of the second.

The Court in Miller did not simply say that the weapon in question was not of a type used by the military. It said that the individual possession of such a weapon did not further the Militia, so it was not protected by the Second Amendment. It then discussed at length how the Militia was the state militia.

The federalization of state militias is subject to another set of caselaw. There is nothing unconstitutional about it.

Regardless, that is an issue of whether each state's Second Amendment rights was violated or not. It does nothing to protect an individual right.

When the people are part of a well-regulated state militia, they are protected in their right to keep and bear arms. But the right to maintain a militia is a state right. As the right of "the people" is contingent on the state right, the right to keep and bear arms is effectively a state right.

This relies on the assumption that, unlike Plessy-vs.-Ferguson, the court's reading on the issue is not subject to change, or fundamentally incorrect.

In the amendment text itself, if the chosen punctuation were a "." instead of a ",", I would agree that the Clause is, in fact, an overriding definition. I would also agree if the wording said "The right of the State to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Or the State's representatives, employees, etc.
It doesn't say that.

I might also remind you that the first gun-control laws passed in the U.S. were passed primarily to disarm people of Colour in the former Confederate states-part of the reversal post-reconstruction that was attempted, and then supported by rulings like Plessy v Ferguson. Confinement of the right to bear arms to the states alone permits abuses of other rights, both by officials, and by those who have influence over them. (The KKK ran riot through many parts of the United States without fear of officialdom because of the influence its members had on State officials, and the inability of its victims to fight back, said inability was also enforced by same state officials.)

On a practical level, it's easier to oppress unarmed people. The "Security" of a FREE STATE is mentioned in the amendment-not "A state" but a free one. Not Slave, or Feudal, state, nor state run by oligarchy, where the State can decide who is a legitimate member of the militia.

You're going to spoonfeed me Miller eh? Let us look at the Miller text you posted.


A grand total of three sentences reference the states at all.


Sentence one: reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

Sentence two:
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. ...

Sentence three: Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms.


On the other hand, directly supporting the individual view as long as said weapon would be useful as a militia weapon.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Where exactly does it say that if the weapon was useful to the common defense the states would have any right to take it away? I want to know, since you seem to think it does. Now as I stated, if it was a shotgun that you break open to load, it would have very limited common defense uses. On the other hand if it was a pump or auto shotgun it would have had plenty of use for the common defense, especially in urban fighting.

Try to follow along. A Supreme Court opinion is not a soundbite.

Where does the opinion say there is an individual right to bear arms?

Where does it say that, if a weapon has military uses, it is protected by the Second Amendment?

I already walked through this point-by-point in my prior post.

1. The Court says that, in the absence of evidence that the possession or use of the weapon in question was reasonably related to a well-regulated militia, that possession or use is not protected.

A. It is not the nature of the weapon, but the context of its use that determines whether the Second Amendment applies.

The possession or use of the weapon in question msut be reasonably related to a well-regulated militia.

2. The Court then explains that Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, reseves "'to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'" The Constitution itself describes Militias as being created and maintained by the states.

3. The Court further explains that "[t]he Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress." Again, the Militia in question in the Constitution -- including the Second Amendment -- is maintained and trained by the states.

If, as you appear to contend, the opinion merely held that any weapon usable in the military was protected by the Second Amendment, did the Supreme Court spend the rest of the opinion explaining the history of state militias? Hmmm? Pure curiosity?

Further, note that the Court in US v. Lewis summarized Miller just as I do.

Again, you continue to ignore 2 of 3 of my original points. You fail to respond to the content of my last several posts. Try to keep up.

From the above article you just linked to:

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

- a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
- a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

Oops? :eek:



I would like to point out however that even with a reduction in gun crime "the year ending March 2004" that crime overall at least is still very significantly up compared to crime before the widespread gun bans of GB. Do you really think that the gun ban has nothing to do with the increased crime? Since of course now criminals have to worry even less about their intended victims having a proper means of protection.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

Cat -Tribe:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311


Laws: Cases and Codes : U.S. Code : Title 10 : Section 311
Section 311. Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code as of: 01/06/03

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


Interpret, please.

On a side note, do you know basic grammar?


A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to read and compose books shall not be infringed.

Basic grammar lesson here. Is the first is the first clause dependent on the second, or is the second clause dependant on the first? Think carefully, it might be hard.

Meh.

I'm well aware of basic grammar. Changing the content of the Amendment to some hypothetical does not change it.

If such language were an amendment to the Constitution with the same history and context as the Second Amendment, the second clause would still be dependent on the first.

This is an old canard you picked up on the internet.

Do you not think this and a million other silly arguments have not been made by the NRA to the courts? ... And they have uniformly lost.

You still have not responded to the arguments I have made. I have responded to every one of yours.

Cat -Tribe:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=10&sec=311



Interpret, please.

This federal statue has nothing to do with meaning of the Second Amendment.

Nice try.

This federal statue has nothing to do with meaning of the Second Amendment.

Nice try.

Well, the reason I brought up that specific Federal Statute, is that it provides a LEGAL definition of what the "Militia" is. Assuming your argument is right, then all males between 17 and 45 are legally 'the militia', provided they fit the requirement for enlistment in section 313, title 32.

Since Federal Statute overrides State laws(too many cases to count), and more recent laws hold precedence over older laws, Miller-based arguments as to the definition of the Militia no longer apply, given that the wording in 310 and 313 are both current as of June of 2003, whereas the Miller Decision was rendered in 1956.
Women weren't permitted into the National Guard until the 1970's...so the Federal Statute has been revised at LEAST since the Miller decision you are using as the basis of your assertion. Under Federal definitions, you can forbid women from owning firearms if they aren't members of the National Guard, but draft-age men under 45 (or 64 if prior enlisted) are firmly "Militia", and therefore enjoy second-amendment protections (unless you are going to claim that the law here does not apply a definition-which is the purpose of the two sections quoted...)

ALL of that is based on the assumption that you are, in fact, correct.

Well, the reason I brought up that specific Federal Statute, is that it provides a LEGAL definition of what the "Militia" is. Assuming your argument is right, then all males between 17 and 45 are legally 'the militia', provided they fit the requirement for enlistment in section 313, title 32.

Since Federal Statute overrides State laws(too many cases to count), and more recent laws hold precedence over older laws, Miller-based arguments as to the definition of the Militia no longer apply, given that the wording in 310 and 313 are both current as of June of 2003, whereas the Miller Decision was rendered in 1956.
Women weren't permitted into the National Guard until the 1970's...so the Federal Statute has been revised at LEAST since the Miller decision you are using as the basis of your assertion. Under Federal definitions, you can forbid women from owning firearms if they aren't members of the National Guard, but draft-age men under 45 (or 64 if prior enlisted) are firmly "Militia", and therefore enjoy second-amendment protections (unless you are going to claim that the law here does not apply a definition-which is the purpose of the two sections quoted...)

ALL of that is based on the assumption that you are, in fact, correct.

Your thinking is off-track in many respects. Here are a few off the top of my head:

1) The federal statute cannot change the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Constitution is supreme.

2) A federal statute cannot change the definition of the state militias protected by the Second Amendment.

3) Changes in what is considered a militia do not change the logic of Miller.

Again, these are tired canards that have been tried before. They are meaningless.

Try to find a single case in which a gun law has been held to violate the Second Amendment. That will keep you busy.

I would like to point out however that even with a reduction in gun crime "the year ending March 2004" that crime overall at least is still very significantly up compared to crime before the widespread gun bans of GB. Do you really think that the gun ban has nothing to do with the increased crime? Since of course now criminals have to worry even less about their intended victims having a proper means of protection.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis
Just how significantly has crime gone up since the gun ban, and how much is this increase directly related to the banning of guns? In the meantime, I will stick with the facts that I have been presented with:

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in this country is relatively low – less than half of 1 percent of all crime recorded by the police – and in the year ending 31 March 2004, there was:

- a 15 per cent reduction in homicides involving firearms
- a 13 per cent reduction in robberies involving firearms

From what I can see, there has been a significant reduction in at least two important categories. Good luck on your quest.

Screw this. I'm going to get my engineering degree, build up my required 10,000 CAD and move to Canada so I can be a gun nut and not catch endless shit for it.

The points in the pro/anti gun control arguments are generally beside the point.
Here are the most important points for each side:

PRO:
The definition of "to bear arms" at the time of the Constitution's drafting. This would seem to mean that the only purpose of possessing arms that the Constitution promotes is for the use by a martial, non-Federal organization of citizens, a militia. The National Guard falls under this heading. From their website:

About the National Guard

The National Guard, the oldest component of the Armed Forces of the United States and one of the nation's longest-enduring institutions, celebrated its 368th birthday on December 13, 2004. The National Guard traces its history back to the earliest English colonies in North America. Responsible for their own defense, the colonists drew on English military tradition and organized their able-bodied male citizens into militias.

The colonial militias protected their fellow citizens from Indian attack, foreign invaders, and later helped to win the Revolutionary War. Following independence, the authors of the Constitution empowered Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia." However, recognizing the militia's state role, the Founding Fathers reserved the appointment of officers and training of the militia to the states. Today's National Guard still remains a dual state-Federal force.
The National Guard claims it is the militia, as referred to in the Constitution. This is different from the Federal statute definition, for what reason I know not.

The other argument the pro side has is that the Second Amendment has never rendered a gun control law unconstitutional.

Now, CON:
The previously cited federal statute defining the militia as all 18-45 year old men and Nat'l Guard women. This is not an organized force, which may or may not be unconstitutional. This is a matter for the Supremes to decide.

The modern translation of the term "to bear arms". If the modern translation was the one Madison, Jefferson and Co. had in mind, the con side has it.

This modern/archaic, original intent, and meaning debate is known in theology as hermeneutics, and it is just as contentious as gun control. Hermeneutics is the practice of interpretation. We have an entire branch of the government devoted to this, it's called the judiciary.

Personally, I think the pros have a stronger constitutional argument. However, this is only my personal view.

1) The federal statute cannot change the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Constitution is supreme.

2) A federal statute cannot change the definition of the state militias protected by the Second Amendment.

3) Changes in what is considered a militia do not change the logic of Miller.

The only thing that has changed really about the definition of militia is that it no longer excludes blacks because they are now full citizens and it also no longer excludes women. And last time I checked, the US Constitution was not written in some bizzaro universe where basic grammatical rules in effect at the time did not apply. Especially interesting is that several major framers to the constitution were writers and editors for various publications in their own right.


For that matter, Burton vs. Sills, one of the cases you view as evidence of a collectivist right, had to modify the word militia in ther decision. Cause if they hadn't it would have backed the original meaning of the word which most certainly backs an individual view of the 2nd.

Your thinking is off-track in many respects. Here are a few off the top of my head:

1) The federal statute cannot change the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Constitution is supreme.

2) A federal statute cannot change the definition of the state militias protected by the Second Amendment.

3) Changes in what is considered a militia do not change the logic of Miller.

Again, these are tired canards that have been tried before. They are meaningless.

Try to find a single case in which a gun law has been held to violate the Second Amendment. That will keep you busy.


But, Cat-Tribe, Federal STATUTE has already changed the definition of Militias, and did so before the Miller Case reached the court-State Militias were FEDERALIZED as the NATIONAL GUARD, and funding was moved from the individual states to the U.S. Congress-and never moved back.
Prior to the federalization (which had to be accomplished in Congress) the Militias of the several states recieved no federal funds. Ergo, at least one of your points in reply may be entirely correct relying solely on "Precedent", but it is still a change of definition, ergo, federal statute can change the definition of "Militia"-this impacts directly on how the Amendment is applied.

Since Laws that are not enforced (or enforced as written), have no meaning, how the laws are enforced carries the water-in this case, as the Militias have been Federalized, Federal Statute defines what 'militia' is-and by extension, my argument is correct in practice. (De-Facto, if not De-Jure).

[QUOTE=CanuckHeaven]Just how significantly has crime gone up since the gun ban, and how much is this increase directly related to the banning of guns? In the meantime, I will stick with the facts that I have been presented with:


A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7. Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed. Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

The Guardian reported that "gun crime in Britain is soaring to record levels: executions, woundings and related incidents in the past year are set to be the highest everÂ…" And, it noted, "the number of armed operations by police is also at a record level." Less than two weeks later, on January 11, 2001, the paper reported that "use of handguns in crime in England and Wales reached its highest level for seven years in 1999-2000," 37 percent higher than the year before. Adding insult to injury, the London Telegraph reported on February 23 that 26 percent of those living in England and Wales had been crime victims in 1999. With one out of four people a crime victim, almost every Brit is acquainted with someone who has been recently victimized. Home Secretary Jack Straw admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime." On February 1, 1998, after a century of the incremental implementation of increasingly harsh restrictive laws, private ownership of all handguns was outlawed under what was labeled by many as some of "the toughest gun control laws in the world." Despite them--and perhaps because of them--guns have been flooding into Great Britain from the international black market, driven and funded by the demands of Britain's rapidly developing criminal gun-culture. It had been estimated that the number of illegally possessed firearms doubled over the past four years and has now reached a figure of 3 million or more. But on January 15, 2001, The Independent noted that "...the National Criminal Intelligence Service has...concluded that the scale of Britain's black market in firearms is 'far higher than anybody had previously thought.'" To put this in perspective, in 1997, according to figures from the Home Office, the total number of lawfully possessed firearms in England and Wales was 1.65 million.

"Since you banned all lawfully-owned handguns in 1997 and then rounded them up and sent them off to the smelters, gun crime has gone up. Last month the London Sunday Times reported it was up 10 percent in just the last year. Attempted homicides are up 15 percent. And 'violence against the person involving firearms' has increased an average of 11 percent per year for the past six years straight. That means when you leave here tonight, your chances of being shot, robbed, raped or assaulted at gunpoint are about 65 percent higher than they were in 1993." -Charlton Heston

"A police constable in the West Side of London--an authorized firearms inspector--said he didn't think England's handgun ban had any effect at all. He said he didn't think it was meant to, calling it 'pure politics.' When we asked to quote him on that, he backed off and said he could lose his job for speaking his mind." -Charlton Heston (statements made at Oxford University, 2001)

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." --Dalai Lama

This is what I could come up with quickly, but don't worry I will make sure to get more later. ;)

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

Yes but is the solution to [urban American crime] guns?No. The solution is the elimination of drug prohibition among other things. Actually, the attempted solution has been guns for some time - guns in the hands of police. But heavy-handed law enforcement strategies have only made things worse.

Although, having guns in the hands of ordinary people doesn't hurt.

BTW Charlton Heston /\ is talking nonsense.

BTW Charlton Heston /\ is talking nonsense.
Yes, you are right. If the quote is attributed to Charlton Heston his ass is sucking wind.

Denmark has almost three times the crime rate of the United States.
Bullshit. Or you failed math miserably

From Nationmaster.com:
Total crimes (per capita)
4. Denmark 93.64 per 1000 people
[...]
8. United States 81.55 per 1000 people

Besides, Sweden isnt on the top ten. But maybe you would like to have a look yourself, eh? Link (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sw/Crime)

To put it bluntly, spouting lies without even citing a source, is a disgrace for your viewpoint. Obvious partisanship should at least try to maintain a facade of factual evidence, shouldn't it?

I don't know why I bother as my arguments are simply ignored, but here a handful of cases illustrating further the state of the law re the Second Amendment.

These cases show that the US Court of Appeals of every circuit in the land have repeatedly rejected your reading of the Second Amendment and Miller. The also show that the arguments you are trying to raise have been considered and rejected.

This is not one judge or one court. This is scores of judges on 11 different courts over many decades. These judges are from different political backgrounds and different ideologies -- yet they agree on this issue.

Not one single decision holding that a gun restriction violates the Second Amendment in the history of the U.S. -- despite the well-funded efforts to appeal every case and fight every law by the gun-lobby and NRA. The legal record speaks volumes.

Widespread ownership of guns may be good. Even though gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment, such laws may be harmful, counter-productive, and/or tyrannical. But leave the poor Second Amendment out of it. It simply does not say or mean what you think.

United States v. Lippman (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/8th/033275p.pdf), No. 03-3275, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 10432 (8th Cir. May 27, 2004):

Defendant argued that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm violated the Second Amendment. The court cited its earlier decisions holding that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms “when it is reasonably related to the maintenance of a well regulated militia.” Id. at *11 (citations omitted). The court found that the defendant had not shown that his firearm possession was reasonably related to a well regulated militia and rejected the Second Amendment claim. Id.

Here are relevant excerpts from the opinion:

Finally, Lippman argues that his conviction should be reversed because § 922(g)(8) is unconstitutional. … Lippman contends that the Second Amendment protects his individual right to bear arms and that the district court erred in its conclusion that § 922(g)(8) does not impermissibly infringe on that right.
…
In a line of cases starting with United States v. Synnes, 438 F.2d 764, 772 (8th Cir. 1971), we have held that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms when it is reasonably related to the maintenance of a well regulated militia. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 315 F.3d 972, 973-74 (8th Cir. 2003); United States v. Lewis, 236 F.3d 948, 950 (8th Cir. 2001); United States v. Smith, 171 F.3d 617, 624 (8th Cir. 1999); United States v. Farrell, 69 F.3d 891, 894 (8th Cir. 1995); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992); United States v. Nelson, 859 F.2d 1318, 1320 (8th Cir. 1988); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34, 37 (8th Cir. 1972). Hutzell is no exception because it cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178-79 (1939), in connection with the right to bear arms, and the Supreme Court held in Miller that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms in "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." Id. … Since Lippman has not shown that his firearm possession was reasonably related to a well regulated militia, his Second Amendment argument cannot succeed.

United States v. Parker (http://laws.findlaw.com/10th/034119.html), 362 F.3d 1279 (10th Cir. 2004):

Defendant, convicted of carrying a loaded firearm on a military base, appealed on the ground that the conviction violated the Second Amendment. Relying on United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the court rejected defendant’s claim, holding that in order to prove a Second Amendment violation, one must first show that the alleged possession of the firearm was related to participation in a well-regulated state militia. 362 F.3d at 1282.

Here are excerpts from the opinion:

On appeal, Parker contends his prosecution pursuant to the ACA violates his right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
…
Our analysis is guided by the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). … Miller has been interpreted by this court and other courts to hold that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual the right to keep and transport a firearm where there is no evidence that possession of that firearm was related to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. See Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (citing Miller for proposition that "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia");see also Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052, 1061 (9th Cir. 2003) (referring to Miller's implicit rejection of traditional individual rights position); Love v. Pepersack, 47 F.3d 120, 124 (4th Cir. 1995) ("Since [Miller], the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right."); United States v. Toner, 728 F.2d 115, 128 (2d Cir. 1984) (interpreting Miller to stand for rule that, absent reasonable relationship to preservation of well-regulated militia, there is no fundamental right to possess firearm); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977) (analyzing Miller and concluding that "[t]o apply the amendment so as to guarantee appellant's right to keep an unregistered firearm which has not been shown to have any connection to the militia, merely because he is technically a member of the Kansas militia, would be unjustifiable in terms of either logic or policy").

Drawing on Miller, we repeatedly have held that to prevail on a Second Amendment challenge, a party must show that possession of a firearm is in connection with participation in a "well-regulated" "state" "militia." See United States v. Haney, 264 F.3d 1161, 1165 (10th Cir. 2001) (holding "that a federal criminal gun-control law does not violate the Second Amendment unless it impairs the state's ability to maintain a well-regulated militia"); Oakes, 564 F.2d at 387 (stating "purpose of the second amendment . . . was to preserve the effectiveness and assure the continuation of the state militia"). Applying this principle, in Haney we set out a four-part test a party must satisfy to establish a Second Amendment violation: "As a threshold matter, [a party] must show that (1) he is part of a state militia; (2) the militia, and his participation therein, is `well regulated' by the state; (3) [guns of the type at issue] are used by that militia; and (4) his possession of the [the gun at issue] was reasonably connected to his militia service." 264 F.3d at 1165. See also United States v. Bayles, 310 F.3d 1302, 1307 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Haney to uphold federal law restricting a person subject to a domestic violence protective order from possessing a firearm); United States v. Graham, 305 F.3d 1094, 1106 (10th Cir. 2002) (applying Haney to find law banning sale of explosive devices does not infringe upon person's Second Amendment rights). Unless Parker can satisfy these four criteria, he cannot prevail on his Second Amendment claim. Notably, Parker has presented no evidence tending to show that he meets any of the Haney criteria.
…

[T]he Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have adopted the most restrictive interpretation (also known as "the collective rights model") of the Second Amendment. Under "the collective rights model," the Second Amendment never applies to individuals but merely recognizes the state's right to arm its militia. See Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, 185 F.3d 693 (7th Cir. 1999); Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996); Love, 47 F.3d 120; United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Price, 328 F.3d 958, 961 (7th Cir. 2003). Similarly, in addition to this court, the First, Third, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have all adopted a "sophisticated collective rights model." Under this interpretation of the Second Amendment, an individual has a right to bear arms, but only in direct affiliation with a well-organized state-supported militia. See United States v. Wright, 117 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 1997); United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992); Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942).

… We conclude Parker's prosecution by the United States pursuant to the ACA did not violate the Second Amendment.

United States v. Rybar (http://www.healylaw.com/cases/rybar.htm), 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 118 S.Ct. 446 (1997):

Rejected defendant’s Second Amendment and Commerce Clause challenge to his conviction for unlawful transfer or possession of machine guns in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Defendant, a federally licensed firearms dealer who obtained the machine guns at issue at a gun show, argued that because of the obvious military utility of a machine gun, the federal law regulating its possession is unconstitutional under the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The Third Circuit first noted that while the Supreme Court in Miller clearly suggested that the firearm at issue lacked the necessary military character, the Court did not state that “such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection.” Id. at 286. Instead, Miller “assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its ‘possession or use’ and militia-related activity.” Id. (citations omitted).

Noting that defendant’s possession and use of the machine guns was related to his business activity as a firearms dealer and not to any militia-related activity, the court affirmed the principle established in Miller that, regardless of the military character of a firearm, the Second Amendment is inapplicable when there is no connection between defendant’s possession of a firearm on the one hand and any protected militia-related activity on the other. Finally, the Third Circuit referred defendant to its decisions “on several occasions emphasiz[ing] that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms.” Id. at 286 (citations omitted).

Here are excerpts from the opinion:
As an independent basis for his argument that Section(s) 922(o) is unconstitutional, Rybar relies on the Second Amendment of the Constitution, which provides: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II.

In support, Rybar cites, paradoxically, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), where the Court upheld the constitutionality of a firearms-registration requirement against a Second Amendment challenge. Rybar draws on that holding, relying on the Miller Court's observation that the sawed-off shotgun in question had not been shown to bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." Brief of Appellant at 24-25; Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Drawing from that language the contra positive implication, Rybar suggests that because the military utility of the machine guns proscribed by Section(s) 922(o) is clear, a result contrary to that reached in Miller is required, and the statute is therefore invalid under the Second Amendment.

Rybar's reliance on Miller is misplaced. The language Rybar cites is taken from the following passage:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
307 U.S. at 178.

We note first that however clear the Court's suggestion that the firearm before it lacked the necessary military character, it did not state that such character alone would be sufficient to secure Second Amendment protection. In fact, the Miller Court assigned no special importance to the character of the weapon itself, but instead demanded a reasonable relationship between its "possession or use" and militia related activity. Id.; see Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942) (susceptibility of firearm to military application not determinative), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943). Rybar has not demonstrated that his possession of the machine guns had any connection with militia-related activity. Indeed, as noted above, Rybar was a firearms dealer and the transactions in question appear to have been consistent with that business activity.

Nonetheless, Rybar attempts to place himself within the penumbra of membership in the "militia" specified by the Second Amendment by quoting from 10 U.S.C. Section(s) 311(a):
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are . . . citizens of the United States . . . .
Rybar's invocation of this statute does nothing to establish that his firearm possession bears a reasonable relationship to "the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," as required in Miller, 307 U.S. at 178. Nor can claimed membership in a hypothetical or "sedentary" militia suffice. See United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1020 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 997 (1993); United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978); United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).

Rybar boldly asserts that "the Miller Court was quite simply wrong in its superficial (and one-sided) analysis of the Second Amendment." Brief of Appellant at 27. As one of the inferior federal courts subject to the Supreme Court's precedents, we have neither the license nor the inclination to engage in such freewheeling presumptuousness. In any event, this court has on several occasions emphasized that the Second Amendment furnishes no absolute right to firearms. See United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3d Cir. 1977); Eckert v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.2d 610 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 839, 843 (1973). Federal attempts at firearms regulation have also consistently withstood challenge under the Second Amendment. See, e.g., Hale, 978 F.2d at 1020; Warin, 530 F.2d at 108; United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290 n.5 (7th Cir. 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974); Cases, 131 F.2d at 923. We see no reason why Section(s) 922(o) should be an exception.

Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), cert. denied sub nom, Hickman v. County of Los Angeles, 519 U.S. 912 (1996):

Hickman filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after his application for a concealed carry weapon permit was denied by Los Angeles County Sheriff and City of Los Angeles Chief of Police. Held, based on the “seminal” Supreme Court decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), that an individual has no standing to raise a Second Amendment claim because “the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, [and] the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.” Id. at 102. Based on a “plain reading” of the Amendment’s text, the Ninth Circuit also stated that “it is only in the furtherance of state security that ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms’ is finally proclaimed.” Id. (citation omitted). Reiterating that even technical membership or eligibility for enrollment in state militia is insufficient, the Ninth Circuit also emphasized that even if there were individual standing to bring a Second Amendment claim, it would fail because the Second Amendment is not incorporated into the Bill of Rights against action by state and local governments. Id. at 103 n.10.

Here are excerpts from the opinion:

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states: "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." U.S. Const. amend. II. Hickman argues that the Second Amendment requires the states to regulate gun ownership and use in a "reasonable" manner. The question presented at the threshold of Hickman's appeal is whether the Second Amendment confers upon individual citizens standing to enforce the right to keep and bear arms. We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen.

….

This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court. The seminal authority in this area continues to be United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court upheld a conviction under the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. S 1132 (1934), for transporting a sawed-off shotgun in interstate commerce. The Court rejected the appellant's hypothesis that the Second Amendment protected his possession of that weapon. Consulting the text and history of the amendment, the Court found that the right to keep and bear arms is meant solely to protect the right of the states to keep and maintain armed militia. In a famous passage, the Court held that
in the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.
307 U.S. at 178 .5 The Court's understanding follows a plain reading of the Amendment's text. The Amendment's second clause declares that the goal is to preserve the security of "a free state;" its first clause establishes the premise that wellregulated militia are necessary to this end. Thus it is only in furtherance of state security that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is finally proclaimed.

Following Miller, "it is clear that the Second Amendment guarantees a collective rather than an individual right." United States v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103, 106 (6th Cir.), cert. denied 96 S.Ct. 3168 (1976); see also Thomas v. Members of City Council of Portland, 730 F.2d 41, 42 (1st Cir. 1984) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548, 550 (4th Cir. 1974) (cited with approval in Lewis, 445 U.S. at 65 n.8) (same). Because the Second Amendment guarantees the right of the states to maintain armed militia, the states alone stand in the position to show legal injury when this right is infringed.

… Even in states which profess to maintain a citizen militia, an individual may not rely on this fact to manipulate the Constitution's legal injury requirement by arguing that a particular weapon of his admits some military use, or that he himself is a member of the armed citizenry from which the state draws its militia. United States v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384, 387 (10th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 926 (1978) (technical membership in state militia insufficient to show legal injury under Second Amendment); Warin, 530 F.2d at 106 (same with respect to individual "subject to enrollment" in state militia); United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016, 1019 (8th Cir. 1982) (same, citing Warin); United States v. Graves, 554 F.2d 65, 66 n.2 (3rd. Cir. 1977) (en banc) (narrowly construing the Second Amendment "to guarantee the right to bear arms as a member of a militia").

I have over 60 more cases I can post -- which are not exhaustive of the caselaw on this issue. I won't bother. The caselaw is uniform and overwhelming.

I don't think you can point to any other issue in which the caselaw has been so uniform for so long, but the caselaw was eventually overturned or proven wrong. "Seperate but equal" lasted not so nearly as long and was never so uniform.

You have no legal leg to stand on -- regardless of what guncite and other pro-gun websites may say.

Just how significantly has crime gone up since the gun ban, and how much is this increase directly related to the banning of guns? In the meantime, I will stick with the facts that I have been presented with:


A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7. Gun control in Mexico is a fascinating case study. Mexican gun laws are simply draconian. No civilian may own a gun larger than .22 caliber, and a permit is required to buy one. All guns in Mexico are registered with the Ministry Of Defense. Guns may not be carried in public, either openly or concealed. Mexico's murder rate is an eye-popping 17.5. Mexican authorities are fond of blaming the high murder rate on firearms smuggled across the border from the United States. Nonsense. The U.S. has many more personal guns than Mexico, yet our murder rate is far lower than Mexico's. It is Mexico's absurd gun laws that prevent law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves against illegally armed criminals.

The Guardian reported that "gun crime in Britain is soaring to record levels: executions, woundings and related incidents in the past year are set to be the highest everÂ…" And, it noted, "the number of armed operations by police is also at a record level." Less than two weeks later, on January 11, 2001, the paper reported that "use of handguns in crime in England and Wales reached its highest level for seven years in 1999-2000," 37 percent higher than the year before. Adding insult to injury, the London Telegraph reported on February 23 that 26 percent of those living in England and Wales had been crime victims in 1999. With one out of four people a crime victim, almost every Brit is acquainted with someone who has been recently victimized. Home Secretary Jack Straw admitted that "levels of victimization are higher than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime." On February 1, 1998, after a century of the incremental implementation of increasingly harsh restrictive laws, private ownership of all handguns was outlawed under what was labeled by many as some of "the toughest gun control laws in the world." Despite them--and perhaps because of them--guns have been flooding into Great Britain from the international black market, driven and funded by the demands of Britain's rapidly developing criminal gun-culture. It had been estimated that the number of illegally possessed firearms doubled over the past four years and has now reached a figure of 3 million or more. But on January 15, 2001, The Independent noted that "...the National Criminal Intelligence Service has...concluded that the scale of Britain's black market in firearms is 'far higher than anybody had previously thought.'" To put this in perspective, in 1997, according to figures from the Home Office, the total number of lawfully possessed firearms in England and Wales was 1.65 million.

"Since you banned all lawfully-owned handguns in 1997 and then rounded them up and sent them off to the smelters, gun crime has gone up. Last month the London Sunday Times reported it was up 10 percent in just the last year. Attempted homicides are up 15 percent. And 'violence against the person involving firearms' has increased an average of 11 percent per year for the past six years straight. That means when you leave here tonight, your chances of being shot, robbed, raped or assaulted at gunpoint are about 65 percent higher than they were in 1993." -Charlton Heston

"A police constable in the West Side of London--an authorized firearms inspector--said he didn't think England's handgun ban had any effect at all. He said he didn't think it was meant to, calling it 'pure politics.' When we asked to quote him on that, he backed off and said he could lose his job for speaking his mind." -Charlton Heston (statements made at Oxford University, 2001)

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." --Dalai Lama

This is what I could come up with quickly, but don't worry I will make sure to get more later. ;)

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

Wow. It must have been really tough to cut and past that crap from Guns & Ammo magazine! :rolleyes:
Everything you say comes from here (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/), here (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/british_path_to_hell/), and here (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/dictatorship_of_decorum/).

Now, let's look at some real figures from a real source - the UK Home Office:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2004/07/22/crime_englandwales_jul04.pdf
Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf) (see pages 2 & 51)

What? All crime and all violence have been steadily decreasing in the UK since 1995? :eek:

Wanna give credit to the gun ban? :D

The Guardian reported that "gun crime in Britain is soaring to record levels: executions, woundings and related incidents in the past year are set to be the highest ever"
That article is 4 years old. :eek:

Try using the statistics from the UK Home Office: (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf)

Keep in mind the changes in reporting and recording practices as noted on page 13 of the document!!

From Page 12:

• BCS crimes rose steadily in the decade from 1981, and continued to rise during the early 1990s, peaking in 1995. Overall crime has fallen in each BCS survey since 1995 (Figure 2.4).

Overall BCS crime has fallen by 39 per cent since 1995, and by 30 per cent since 1997 (Table 2.01).

• The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995 to 26 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2003/04, the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981 (Table 2.03).

Please also note the graph on page 3 of the document.

"Since you banned all lawfully-owned handguns in 1997 and then rounded them up and sent them off to the smelters, gun crime has gone up. Last month the London Sunday Times reported it was up 10 percent in just the last year. Attempted homicides are up 15 percent. And 'violence against the person involving firearms' has increased an average of 11 percent per year for the past six years straight. That means when you leave here tonight, your chances of being shot, robbed, raped or assaulted at gunpoint are about 65 percent higher than they were in 1993." -Charlton Heston
SEE ABOVE!!

Where does the US stand in regards to murders by firearms in the world? (http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=50)

More guns = More killing. :eek:

I only have one question left for you CT. Do you think you are more knowledgeable on the matter than the entire US DOJ? Yes or no.

No. The solution is the elimination of drug prohibition among other things. Actually, the attempted solution has been guns for some time - guns in the hands of police. But heavy-handed law enforcement strategies have only made things worse.

Although, having guns in the hands of ordinary people doesn't hurt.

Wow... I-I can't believe it, I agree with someone in here...again.
I would go further, and say we have entirely too many laws-when Judges have to have research staffs, you have entirely too many laws, and entirely too many of them are vague and open to 'interpretation'.
More Laws=More Crime. Some law-types generate whole families of criminal activity (Drug Prohibition today, Alcohol Prohibition in the 1920's), that did not exist prior to said laws being enacted. Sin-Taxes also generate crime-smuggling cigarettes into some Northeastern states to avoid the tax is a big one, just like bootlegging remained an industry in the South for a very long time indeed after the repeal of Prohibition, and in states where Gambling is illegal, criminals run "Numbers" rackets, gambling dens, etc. (and whole classes of violent crimes are generated protecting such things.)

Reducing the Nanny-State laws that tell someone what they may do (that hurts no one else) with their own money and time, would greatly reduce the domestic crime rates here in the U.S. by denying criminals the markets that support organized crime, and it would empty our prisons of the dross, so's we can keep the truly dangerous animals in the lockup where they belong.
(of course, it would also deny whole classifications of customer for our excess of Lawyers. Poor Lawyers, might have to get real jobs...) The problem of course, is that repealing whole industries (and the Drug War is absolutely an Industry in this country) will put a huge number of people out of work-people who (ghod help us) vote.

I only have one question left for you CT. Do you think you are more knowledgeable on the matter than the entire US DOJ? Yes or no.

Stupid question.

Do I think that I and 60+ years of DOJ policy are right and that one memo written for political reasons during Ashcroft's reigh are wrong? Yes.

Do I know for a fact that the one memo does not reflect the views of all of the attorneys of "the entire US DOJ"? Yes.

To slightly repeat myself, do I know that for 60+ years the DOJ policy has been contrary to that memo -- including in briefs filed by Ashcroft's DOJ? Yes.

Do I think that every US Court of Appeals decision on the matter (save one since overruled dicta) are right and the Ashcroft DOJ memo are wrong? Yes.

Do I think I know more about this issue than you? Yes.

This is fun. I can see why Rumsfeld prefers to answer his own questions.

EDIT: And I have a question for you -- are you going to respond to the 2 of my original 3 arguments you never touched or upon any of my follow-up arguments? Or are you going to concede you are in over your head?

Stupid question.

Do I think that I and 60+ years of DOJ policy are right and that one memo written for political reasons during Ashcroft's reigh are wrong? Yes.

Do I know for a fact that the one memo does not reflect the views of all of the attorneys of "the entire US DOJ"? Yes.

To slightly repeat myself, do I know that for 60+ years the DOJ policy has been contrary to that memo -- including in briefs filed by Ashcroft's DOJ? Yes.

Do I think that every US Court of Appeals decision on the matter (save one since overruled dicta) are right and the Ashcroft DOJ memo are wrong? Yes.

Do I think I know more about this issue than you? Yes.

This is fun. I can see why Rumsfeld prefers to answer his own questions.


Well, for one you can't count.
In 1959, this Office reviewed a bill that would have secured the custody and disposition of missiles, rockets, and earth satellites. We questioned its definition of "missile," which included "projectile" and "seems to include conventional ammunition," and we commented that if the bill purported "to prohibit private individuals from acquiring, possessing, or receiving any standard ammunition for firearms . . . . serious constitutional problems would arise under the Second Amendment." (23) In commenting on similar bills in 1961 and 1962, this Office cited and reaffirmed its 1959 memorandum.
It didn't take the collectivist veiwpoint until one Attorney General Katzenbach came to power under Lyndon B. Johnson and it was from his own testimony, not necessarily from his subordinates in the DOJ.


Soon after, in 1968, Congress passed the first major federal gun regulation since 1938, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. (26) This statute produced a flurry of decisions in the federal courts of appeals rejecting the individual-right view. Following the Third Circuit's dicta in Tot, the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits eventually adopted the collective-right view. (27) Following the First Circuit in Cases, the Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits adopted quasi-collective-right views. (28) As in Tot and Cases, many of these cases, particularly the initial ones, involved constitutional challenges by persons convicted of felonies or violent crimes, (29) and some involved challenges to restrictions on carrying concealed weapons.
Now, if people convicted of various felonies and violent crimes can be denied the right to vote, obviously they can be denied the right to own a weapon. Common sense. As for concealed carry, while evidence suggests it's useful in suppressing crime it isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. So, if you can't be bothered to establish the actual timeline, how exactly are you right? For that matter, have you even read the memorandum? Pretty logical to me. Love to see if you can point out where it's wrong and exactly how so.

In fact, as to where it discusses the grammatical structure and denotation of the 2nd, I'd bet my college tuition you couldn't.

Well, for one you can't count.

It didn't take the collectivist veiwpoint until one Attorney General Katzenbach came to power under Lyndon B. Johnson and it was from his own testimony, not necessarily from his subordinates in the DOJ.


Now, if people convicted of various felonies and violent crimes can be denied the right to vote, obviously they can be denied the right to own a weapon. Common sense. As for concealed carry, while evidence suggests it's useful in suppressing crime it isn't covered by the 2nd amendment. So, if you can't be bothered to establish the actual timeline, how exactly are you right? For that matter, have you even read the memorandum? Pretty logical to me. Love to see if you can point out where it's wrong and exactly how so.

In fact, as to where it discusses the grammatical structure and denotation of the 2nd, I'd bet my college tuition you'd couldn't.

1. You are wrong about the timeline. Who do you think represented the United States in the Miller case in 1939? Regardless, if you look at the DOJ memo itself, it describes policy back 60 years. Nice try.

2. I should have known you were not even in college yet. Are you at least in high school?

3. I have read the memorandum. More than once. It is a fairly decent collection of the best arguments that have been rejected again and again by the courts. You may note that the DOJ has failed to persuade a single court to adopt the view of the memo. Not even Reagan or Dubya appointees. I wonder why?

4. I'm not going to bother to debate a 103-page report. It is wrong. It is wrong for all of the reasons I have set forth and to which you couldn't respond. There are many explanations out there of why they are wrong. Find them and expand your mind yourself.

Seconded. Lippman was a Felon-most Felons lose their right to vote, it's consistent that he would lose the right to bear arms.

Rybar was knowingly in violation of both his Dealer's license (Presumably he was not a Class-III dealer), and common-sense, his use of Miller was incorrect.
As someone who has worked in the industry before, even I know the difference here.


There is no implied right to carry concealed, and indeed, it's a State and Local matter, and has always been so. Hickman might have had more traction if he weren't trying to (ab)use the second amendment like that, or if he were dealing with legal harassment for having a gun, rather than for trying to carry it concealed.

Parker-was on a Military Installation, Constitutional rights (as anyone with time in the uniform knows) don't exist on Military Installations. He's lucky he got to go to a civilian court, since the crime was comitted under MILITARY regulations.
(the only rights you have on a military base are-gasp! the ones Congress says you may have, as defined under branch regulations and the UCMJ, and can be restricted by the Post Commander still further if he or she so desires to do so.)

Seconded. Lippman was a Felon-most Felons lose their right to vote, it's consistent that he would lose the right to bear arms.

Rybar was knowingly in violation of both his Dealer's license (Presumably he was not a Class-III dealer), and common-sense, his use of Miller was incorrect.
As someone who has worked in the industry before, even I know the difference here.


There is no implied right to carry concealed, and indeed, it's a State and Local matter, and has always been so. Hickman might have had more traction if he weren't trying to (ab)use the second amendment like that, or if he were dealing with legal harassment for having a gun, rather than for trying to carry it concealed.

Parker-was on a Military Installation, Constitutional rights (as anyone with time in the uniform knows) don't exist on Military Installations. He's lucky he got to go to a civilian court, since the crime was comitted under MILITARY regulations.
(the only rights you have on a military base are-gasp! the ones Congress says you may have, as defined under branch regulations and the UCMJ, and can be restricted by the Post Commander still further if he or she so desires to do so.)

<sigh>

None of the cases are decided on the grounds you identify.
The cases say what they say.

Again, have you found one -- just one -- that says differently?

There is one Fifth Circuit case that embraces an individual view -- but that is in dicta, and the court upholds the gun law in question. There isn't a single case stricking down a gun law.

If you really want to go case-by-case trying to find niggling excuses, we can do so. But this is just sad.

<sigh>
There is one Fifth Circuit case that embraces an individual view -- but that is in dicta, and the court upholds the gun law in question. There isn't a single case stricking down a gun law.


US v. Emerson, right.

There is a whole bunch of state cases early on that embrace it too.

In any event, it is not much ruled upon and is a unsettled question, so it's very disingenous to say that no-one in the judicary accepts the individual view.

Plus, courts can be wrong about things like this.

A 1997 Justice Department report on murders in the U.S. shows that our country has a murder rate of seven victims per 100,000 population per year. There are a number of well-known examples of countries with more liberal gun laws and lower murder rates than the U.S. One is Finland, with a murder rate of 2.9. Israel is another example; although its population is heavily armed, Israel's murder rate is only 1.4. In Switzerland, gun ownership is a way of life. Its murder rate is 2.7.
What would be interesting to know, is the percentage of those murders that are committed by firearms? Please explain what you mean by more liberal gun laws.

The US has some of the most liberal firearm laws in the world and it is demonstrated that more guns = more murders by firearms:

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/miller-table.jpg

Actually the article (http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/TheCaseForGunControl.html) is a good read as well.

If you don't like that graph, try this one (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=-1).

Keep digging, I am not convinced by your evidence so far.

1. You are wrong about the timeline. Who do you think represented the United States in the Miller case in 1939? Regardless, if you look at the DOJ memo itself, it describes policy back 60 years. Nice try.

2. I should have known you were not even in college yet. Are you at least in high school?

3. I have read the memorandum. More than once. It is a fairly decent collection of the best arguments that have been rejected again and again by the courts. You may note that the DOJ has failed to persuade a single court to adopt the view of the memo. Not even Reagan or Dubya appointees. I wonder why?

4. Find them and expand your mind yourself.
1.Actually, I'm only partially wrong about the timeline in that I erred in thinking it had never been a collectivist standpoint before that. Shall we discuss who had appointed the attorney general who oversaw the Miller case? Cause he wasn't exactly an individualist by any means. However, my point still stands that it was looked at from an individual viewpoint under both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. The two twits under which it wasn't are directly responsible for the entitlement debacle in this country.

2. Oh I'm sorry, my remaining college tuition, albeit enough to carry me through my doctorate. Currently a sophmore, at least in relation to class progression. Freshman year wise.

3. Interesting to note you can't actually argue against them. All you can say is that they have yet to influence any court decisions, even though it came out barely 6 months ago and no case has made it to any major court which directly concerns the 2nd amendment and the 2nd amendment only. They all tend to involve people otherwise convicted of felonies or other crimes unrelated to the 2nd itself. In which case the defense would not be able to properly structure their argument on the grounds of it violating said amendment, at least not successfully.

4. Isn't this just a wee bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

US v. Emerson, right.

There is a whole bunch of state cases early on that embrace it too.

In any event, it is not much ruled upon and is a unsettled question, so it's very disingenous to say that no-one in the judicary accepts the individual view.

Plus, courts can be wrong about things like this.

Not much ruled upon? Unsettled?

Neither is true.

Overall BCS crime has fallen by 39 per cent since 1995, and by 30 per cent since 1997 (Table 2.01).

• The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995 to 26 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2003/04, the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981 (Table 2.03).

Please also note the graph on page 3 of the document.



Violent crime has risen though...have a look at these.

Sexual Offences (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page24.asp)

Sexual assault on a female (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page28.asp)

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page29.asp

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page42.asp

The US has some of the most liberal firearm laws in the world and it is demonstrated that more guns = more murders by firearms:
Duh, common sense that. If you have more guns in an area of course a greater percentage of murders will involve them. However, that correlation has nothing to do with whether alowing the common citizen access to weapons would increase or decrease the murder rate. Two separate arguments.

For that matter, the graph you use includes gunshot suicides. The presence of guns does not affect the suicide rate one way or another. Look at all the modern countries suicide rates, especially Japan's.

Guns dont kill people, niether do bullets, but humans kill eachother. Anyway what is wrong with guns, they arent evil then again what is and without guns we wouldnt have computers (I got this through connect the dots). Besides humans are innately evil (if there is such a thing) so dont blame it on guns. If there was no guns then people will kill eachother with rocks, swords, sticks, and other things that are potentially lethal including pencils.

1.Actually, I'm only partially wrong about the timeline in that I erred in thinking it had never been a collectivist standpoint before that. Shall we discuss who had appointed the attorney general who oversaw the Miller case? Cause he wasn't exactly an individualist by any means. However, my point still stands that it was looked at from an individual viewpoint under both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. The two twits under which it wasn't are directly responsible for the entitlement debacle in this country.

2. Oh I'm sorry, my remaining college tuition, albeit enough to carry me through my doctorate. Currently a sophmore, at least in relation to class progression. Freshman year wise.

3. Interesting to note you can't actually argue against them. All you can say is that they have yet to influence any court decisions, even though it came out barely 6 months ago and no case has made it to any major court which directly concerns the 2nd amendment and the 2nd amendment only. They all tend to involve people otherwise convicted of felonies or other crimes unrelated to the 2nd itself. In which case the defense would not be able to properly structure their argument on the grounds of it violating said amendment, at least not successfully.

4. Isn't this just a wee bit of the pot calling the kettle black?

I tire of this. You are wrong about the DOJ position. It has never advocated an individualist Second Amendment view until recently.

It should hardly be suprising that -- without you responding my arguments here -- I do not wish to go off on a wild goose chase of pointing out the errors and half-truths of a 103-page memo. Shall I find a few law review articles for you to debate? Would you like to point out the errors in the cases I've cited?

A very decent case can be made that gun ownership is a natural right. Many states have constitutional provisions more amenable to defense of an individual right to possess and use firearms.

But you, my friend, are pissing in the wind of legal history. Deal with it.

Duh, common sense that. If you have more guns in an area of course a greater percentage of murders will involve them. However, that correlation has nothing to do with whether alowing the common citizen access to weapons would increase or decrease the murder rate. Two separate arguments.

For that matter, the graph you use includes gunshot suicides. The presence of guns does not affect the suicide rate one way or another. Look at all the modern countries suicide rates, especially Japan's.


Lets do one a little better. Let's look at the number of people in the US who own firearms legally and who have used them in any manner against another person other than self defense.

Now let's turn around and look at people who have firearms in the US and do not legally own them and what they are doing with them.

The majority of people who legally own firearms are responsible citizens who take the responsiblity of owning firearms very seriously. Sure every now and then you have someone who doesn't take it as serious as they should but that number of people is many many times smaller than the number of people who behave irresponsibly in their automobiles.

My guns are mine. I have several that were handed down to me by my grandfather and don't get shot anymore. I have others that serve various purposes such as target practice, hunting, competitive shooting. The government has no more reason or right to take my guns away than they do my clothes or my house or my car until I prove that I am not able to take care or my firearms and handle them in a safe manner.

I keep all of my guns locked up in a gun safe that weighs 800 lbs on its own. Loaded there is no telling what it weighs. You can't get that safe out of my house without taking the door off it. The door has internal hinges protected by a combination lock that has a lock on the dial to prevent the dial from turning. Add to that 1" locking bolts and no one is going to get my guns out of my house without my permission.

The people who legally own guns are not the problem.

I tire of this. You are wrong about the DOJ position. It has never advocated an individualist Second Amendment view until recently.

It should hardly be suprising that -- without you responding my arguments here -- I do not wish to go off on a wild goose chase of pointing out the errors and half-truths of a 103-page memo. Shall I find a few law review articles for you to debate? Would you like to point out the errors in the cases I've cited?

A very decent case can be made that gun ownership is a natural right. Many states have constitutional provisions more amenable to defense of an individual right to possess and use firearms.

But you, my friend, are pissing in the wind of legal history. Deal with it.
I'm still waiting for you to argue against the grammatical structure and denotation of the 2nd amendment. Fuck the lower court cases. All blatantly irrelevant if they misconstrued the meaning of the 2nd in the first place. Miller, the biggest lynchpin of your argument doesn't support what you think it does. In fact it makes no direct judgement either way on the collectivist or individualist stance. Given the case brought against Miller and Layton by the US gov. that is damning in it's own right since what possible need would there be to provide evidence that a weapon need be proper for the possesion and use of one in the militia if the militia didn't include basically every able bodied citizen? Layton and Miller were in no way active in the Nat. Guard or their respective states' active militia assuming there were still such in operation. Therefore the court would only have had to rule that since they were not part of the two aforementioned organizations they had no inherent right in possesing the shotgun at all. Instead, the all the court wanted was clarification on if the weapon in question was useful for militia duty. Period. Not whether the owners were active in those duties in any way.

I'm still waiting for you to argue against the grammatical structure and denotation of the 2nd amendment. Fuck the lower court cases. All blatantly irrelevant if they misconstrued the meaning of the 2nd in the first place. Miller, the biggest lynchpin of your argument doesn't support what you think it does. In fact it makes no direct judgement either way on the collectivist or individualist stance. Given the case brought against Miller and Layton by the US gov. that is damning in it's own right since what possible need would there be to provide evidence that a weapon need be proper for the possesion and use of one in the militia if the militia didn't include basically every able bodied citizen? Layton and Miller were in no way active in the Nat. Guard or their respective states' active militia assuming there were still such in operation. Therefore the court would only have had to rule that since they were not part of the two aforementioned organizations they had no inherent right in possesing the shotgun at all. Instead, the all the court wanted was clarification on if the weapon in question was useful for militia duty. Period. Not whether the owners were active in those duties in any way.

Actually, you've never made an argument about the grammatical structure and denotation. You asked a question and I answered it.

Quit trying to re-write Miller. It says what it says. You keep ignoring what the Supreme Court itself has said about Miller -- not to mention 60+ years of lower court decisions.

You clearly will not be convinced by anything I say. You do not respond to most of my arguments.

The meaning of the Second Amendment is a legal issue. It has been decided again and again and again. Nothing in the DOJ memo is a new argument. They have been tried and they failed. The law is clear.

This has become tedious in addition to pointless.

Feel free to violate any gun laws you like and test your Second Amendment view in the courts. The NRA will gladly back you. You will lose. You can explain why the court was wrong to your fellow inmates.

Actually, you've never made an argument about the grammatical structure and denotation. You asked a question and I answered it.




Here ya go.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Part 1 of 2 since it's damned long.

II. Textual and Structural Analysis

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights, reads in full as follows:

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.

The Amendment expressly protects a "right of the people," which is "to keep and bear Arms" and which has some relation to the prefatory declaration that a "well regulated Militia" is necessary for the ultimate end of "the security of a free State." We address each of these phrases in turn and then consider how the structure of the Constitution illuminates the Amendment's meaning.

As explained below, the text of the Second Amendment points to a personal right of individuals: A "right of the people" is ordinarily and most naturally a right of individuals, not of a State and not merely of those serving the State as militiamen. The phrase "keep arms" at the time of the Founding usually indicated the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals, not the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers, and the phrase certainly had that meaning when used in connection with a "right of the people." While the phrase "bear arms" often referred to carrying of arms in military service, it also sometimes denoted carrying arms for private purposes. The Amendment's prefatory clause, considered under proper rules of interpretation, could not negate the individual right recognized in the clear language of the operative clause. In any event, the prefatory clause - particularly its reference to the "Militia," which was understood at the Founding to encompass all able-bodied male citizens, who were required to be enrolled for service - is fully consistent with an individual-right reading of the operative language. Moreover, the Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights amid amendments securing numerous individual rights, a placement that makes it likely that the right of the people to keep and bear arms likewise belongs to individuals. Finally, a consideration of the powers that the original Constitution grants or allows over the militia makes it unlikely that the Second Amendment would secure a collective or quasi-collective right.

A. "The Right of the People"

The Second Amendment's recognition of a "right" that belongs to "the people" indicates a right of individuals. The word "right," standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have "rights," (37) the Constitution itself does not use the word "right" in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. (38) By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." (39) It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.

In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments.

The Supreme Court, in interpreting the Fourth Amendment, likewise has recognized that the Constitution uses "the people," and especially "the right of the people," to refer to individuals:

"[T]he people" seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained and established by "the People of the United States." The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms," and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to "the people." See also U.S. Const., Amdt. 1 ("Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble") (emphasis added); Art. I, § 2, cl. 1 ("The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States") (emphasis added). While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that "the people" protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community. (40)

Thomas Cooley, the leading constitutional scholar after the Civil War, took the same view in explaining "the people" in the context of the First Amendment: "When the term 'the people' is made use of in constitutional law or discussions, it is often the case that those only are intended who have a share in the government through being clothed with the elective franchise. . . . But in all the enumerations and guaranties of rights the whole people are intended, because the rights of all are equal, and are meant to be equally protected." (41)

The Constitution confirms this meaning of "the people" as individuals by expressly distinguishing the "people" from the "States," using each word to refer to a distinct thing. Indeed, the Second Amendment itself refers separately to "the people" and the "State." And the difference is firmly established by the Tenth Amendment, which distinguishes between the powers reserved "to the States" and those reserved "to the people." The "people" are the individuals who compose the States, distinct from - and bearing their federal "rights" apart from - those entities. (42)

Similarly, the Constitution gives distinct meanings to "the people" and the "Militia." Again, the Second Amendment itself is a notable example, referring to the "well regulated Militia" but granting the "right" to "the people." The Constitution's other references to "rights" of "the people," noted above, cannot plausibly be construed as referring to the "Militia." In addition, when granting governmental power over the militia, the Constitution speaks of the militia expressly, without any reference to or suggestion of the broader "people." (43) And the Fifth Amendment's Grand Jury Clause, which distinguishes between all "person[s]" and those serving in the army, navy, or "the Militia, when in actual service," indicates that where the Constitution addresses rights that turn on service in the militia it does so expressly.

The only truly "collective" use of the "the people" at the time of the Founding was to refer to the people as they existed apart from government or any service to it. The Declaration of Independence refers to "one People" dissolving their political bonds with another and forming their own nation, and "We the people" created the Constitution in ratifying conventions chosen "by the People" of each State. (44) Thus, even in this context, the "people" are distinguished from "the government" or "the State"; nor can the term plausibly be limited to the "Militia." And when "the people" appears in the phrase "the right of the people" in the Constitution, we conclude that it indicates a personal right of individuals, whether that be a right to assemble and petition, to be secure in one's person and property, or to keep and bear arms.

B. "To Keep and Bear Arms"

The "right of the people" that the Second Amendment secures is a right "to keep and bear Arms." As the previous subpart showed, those who hold the right are, according to the text, "the people" - individuals - not the government or even the militia. The phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is consistent with this conclusion: The phrase "keep . . . Arms" reinforces it, (45) and the phrase "bear Arms" is not inconsistent with it.

1. "To Keep . . . Arms."

In eighteenth-century English, an individual could "keep arms," and keep them for private purposes, unrelated to militia duty, just as he could keep any other private property, and the phrase was commonly used in this sense. For example, in Rex v. Gardner (K.B. 1738), a defendant charged with "keeping a gun" in violation of a 1706 English statute (which prohibited commoners from keeping specified objects or "other engines" for the destruction of game) argued that "though there are many things for the bare keeping of which a man may be convicted; yet they are only such as can only be used for destruction of the game, whereas a gun is necessary for defence of a house, or for a farmer to shoot crows." The court agreed, reasoning that "a gun differs from nets and dogs, which can only be kept for an ill purpose." (46) The Court of Common Pleas six years later treated Gardner as having "settled and determined" that "a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family," (47) and in 1752 the King's Bench reiterated that "a gun may be kept for the defence of a man's house, and for divers other lawful purposes." (48) The same usage appeared in an earlier prosecution of a man for "keeping of a gun" contrary to a statute that barred all but the wealthy from privately owning small handguns. (49)

William Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Laws of England, first published in the decade before the American Revolution, was the leading legal authority in America at the Founding, wrote, without any reference to the militia, of "person[s]" who are "qualified to keep a gun" and are "shooting at a mark," apparently on their own property. (50) He also noted that certain persons could not "keep arms in their houses," pursuant to a statute that used "keep" to signify private ownership and control over arms, wherever located. (51) Colonial and early state statutes similarly used "keep" to "describe arms possession by individuals in all contexts," including requiring those exempt from militia service (such as the over-aged) to "keep" arms in their homes for both law enforcement and "the defense of their homes from criminals or foreign enemies." (52) At the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention in 1788, Samuel Adams proposed an amendment prohibiting Congress from "prevent[ing] the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms," indicating ownership by individuals of private arms. (53) And that State's Supreme Court, in a libel case soon after the Founding, likened the "right to keep fire arms" to the freedom of the press, both being individual but not unlimited rights - the former not protecting "him who uses them for annoyance or destruction." (54) The basic dictionary definition of "keep" -"[t]o retain" and "[t]o have in custody"- was consistent with this specific meaning. (55)

In short, the phrase "keep arms" was commonly understood to denote ownership of arms by private citizens for private purposes. When that phrase is read together with its subject - "the right of the people" - the evidence points strongly toward an individual right. Had the Constitution meant not to protect the right of the whole "people" to "keep" arms but instead to establish a "right" of the States or of only the members of their militias to store them, presumably it would have used different language. (56)



2. "To . . . Bear Arms."

To "bear" was, at the Founding as now, a word with numerous definitions - used with great "latitude" and "in very different senses," as Samuel Johnson noted in his dictionary. (57) Its basic meaning was simply to "carry" or "wear" something, particularly carrying or wearing in a way that would be known to others, such as in bearing a message, bearing another person, or bearing something as a mark of authority or distinction. (58) As a result, "bear," when taking "arms" as its object, could refer to multiple contexts in which one might carry or wear arms in this way. (59) It is true that "bear arms" often did refer to carrying arms in military service. (60) But the phrase was not a term of art limited to this sense. Arms also could be "borne" for private, non-military purposes, principally tied to self-defense. For example, an early colonial statute in Massachusetts required every "freeman or other inhabitant" to provide arms for himself and anyone else in his household able to "beare armes," and one in Virginia required "all men that are fittinge to beare armes" to "bring their pieces" to church. (61)

There are also several examples closer to the Founding. In 1779, a committee of eminent Virginians including Thomas Jefferson and George Mason, charged with revising the new State's laws, authored a bill penalizing any person who, within a year of having violated a restriction on hunting deer, "shall bear a gun out of his inclosed ground, unless whilst performing military duty." This bill demonstrates that to "bear a gun" was not limited to "performing military duty." James Madison submitted this bill to the Virginia legislature in 1785. (62) Many early state constitutions, including some written before the Founding (Pennsylvania's and Vermont's) and one written a month after Secretary of State Jefferson declared the Bill of Rights ratified (Kentucky's), protected an individual right to "bear arms" in "defense of himself and the State" or in "defense of themselves and the State," indicating that a person might be said to "bear arms" in self-defense. (63) A 1780 opinion of London's Recorder (the city's legal adviser and the primary judge in its criminal court) on the legality of a private self-defense association acknowledged "the rights of the people of this realm to bear arms, and to instruct themselves in the use of them, collectively," albeit within limits. (64) In a newspaper commentary published in major cities after Madison introduced the Bill of Rights in Congress, a friend of his wrote that the proposed Second Amendment would "confirm[]" the people's "right to keep and bear their private arms." (65) Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, paraphrased as a "right to bear arms" the right of English "subjects . . . [to] have arms for their defence," an individual right not tied to service in the militia. (66) Finally, other examples of contemporaneous uses of "bear arms" to denote actions of individuals appear in cases from the early 1800's up to the Civil War, discussed below in Part IV.B.

The Minority Report issued by twenty-one delegates of the Pennsylvania Convention that ratified the Federal Constitution in late 1787 illustrates the various uses of the phrase at the time, including both the right of private "bearing" and the duty of "bearing" for the government in the militia. The report recommended amending the Constitution to recognize "[t]hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game" and also urged exemption from militia service for those "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms." Although the Minority Report was a product of Anti-Federalists, who had lost at that convention and who lost the battle over ratifying the Constitution, we are unaware of any contemporaneous criticisms that this widely circulated document misused language in giving such senses to the phrase "bear arms." (67)

In sum, although "bear arms" often referred to carrying or wearing arms in connection with military duty, it was not limited to such a meaning. When, as in the Second Amendment, those words are used in conjunction with "keep arms," which commonly did refer to private action, and the whole phrase "to keep and bear Arms" is used in the context of a "right of the people," (68) we conclude that the core, operative text of the Amendment secures a personal right, which belongs to individuals. We next consider whether the Amendment's prefatory language requires a different conclusion.

C. "A Well Regulated Militia, being Necessary to the Security of a Free State"

A feature of the Second Amendment that distinguishes it from the other rights that the Bill of Rights secures is its prefatory subordinate clause, declaring: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, . . . ." Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right interpretations rely on this declaration, particularly its reference to a well-regulated militia. On their interpretation, the "people" to which the Second Amendment refers is only the "people" in a collective, organized capacity as the state governments, or a small subset of the "people" actively organized by those governments into military bodies. "People" becomes interchangeable with the "State" or its "organized militia."

This argument misunderstands the proper role of such prefatory declarations in interpreting the operative language of a provision. A preface can illuminate operative language but is ultimately subordinate to it and cannot restrict it.

Wholly apart from this interpretive principle, this argument also rests on an incomplete understanding of the preface's language. Although the Amendment's prefatory clause, standing alone, might suggest a collective or possibly quasi-collective right to a modern reader, when its words are read as they were understood at the Founding, the preface is fully consistent with the individual right that the Amendment's operative language sets out. The "Militia" as understood at the Founding was not a select group such as the National Guard of today. It consisted of all able-bodied male citizens. The Second Amendment's preface identifies as a justification for the individual right that a necessary condition for an effective citizen militia, and for the "free State" that it helps to secure, is a citizenry that is privately armed and able to use its private arms.

1. The Limits of Prefatory Language.

In the eighteenth century, the proper approach to interpreting a substantive or "operative" legal provision to which a lawmaker had joined a declaration (whether a "Whereas" clause or analogous language) was (1) to seek to interpret the operative provision on its own, and (2) then to look to the declaration only to clarify any ambiguity remaining in the operative provision. (69) It was desirable, if consistent with the operative text, to interpret the operative provision so that it generally fulfilled the justification that the preface declared, but a narrow declaration provided no warrant for restricting the operative text, and the preface could not itself create an ambiguity. This rule applied equally to declarations located in any part of a law, not simply at the beginning of it, and to both statutes and constitutions. We therefore consider this rule applicable to the Second Amendment.

English Parliaments of the 1700's and late 1600's regularly included prefaces throughout statutes - not only at the beginning (constituting the first section) but also in particular sections. (70) The same rule of interpretation applied to both uses of prefaces. As an example of the latter, a section of a bankruptcy statute recited the problem of persons who "convey their goods to other men upon good consideration" before becoming bankrupt, yet continue to act as owners of the goods; the immediately following clause of the statute provided that if a bankrupt debtor possessed "any goods or chattels" with "the consent and permission of the true owner," was their reputed owner, and disposed of them as an owner, such property should repay the debtor's debts rather than return to the true owner. The difficulty arose when the bankrupt debtor possessed property that never had been his, such as property in trust. A leading case in 1716 read the enacting language to apply even in such cases and rejected the argument "that the preamble shall restrain the operation of the enacting clause; and that, because the preamble is too narrow or defective, therefore the enacting clause, which has general words, shall be restrained from its full latitude, and from doing that good which the words would otherwise, and of themselves, import." (71) The King's Bench reiterated the rule in 1723, rejecting in a criminal case an argument based on declaratory language introducing part of a statute: "Now those general words in the enacting part, shall never be restrained by any words introducing that part; for it is no rule in the exposition of statutes to confine the general words of the enacting part to any particular words either introducing it, or to any such words even in the preamble itself." The court acknowledged that "a construction which agrees with the preamble" was desirable, "but not such as may confine the enacting part to it." (72)

Blackstone summed up this understanding in explaining that, although the words of an enacting clause were "generally to be understood in their usual and most known signification," yet if its words, after due analysis, were "still dubious" or "ambiguous, equivocal, or intricate," one might look to the context, which included "the proeme, or preamble, [which] is often called in to help the construction of an act of parliament." (73) Chancellor Kent, a leading early American commentator, likewise reasoned that a preamble, although not technically part of the law, "may, at times, aid in the construction of" a statute or "be resorted to in order to ascertain the inducements to the making" of it, "but when the words of the enacting clause are clear and positive, recourse must not be had to the preamble." (74)

Prefatory language also was common in constitutions, and this rule of construction applied in the same way. Speaking of the preamble of the whole federal Constitution, Joseph Story in his Commentaries reiterated that statutory preambles are "properly resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacting part; for if they are clear and unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation," and he could not see "any reason why, in a fundamental law or constitution of government," the same rule should not apply. (75) Similarly, the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution's preamble lacks any operative legal effect and that, even though it states the Constitution's "general purposes," it cannot be used to conjure a "spirit" of the document to confound clear operative language; (76) the Court has, however, also sought some guidance from the preamble when the operative text did not resolve a question. (77)

The same reasoning applied to declaratory phrases in the language of individual constitutional provisions, the closest analogies to the Second Amendment. The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution provided: "In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed." (78) Even though in some cases a trial outside of the county where a crime was committed might bring it closer to the crime scene, or a judge might think a trial in the county where the crime occurred not "essential to" (or even in conflict with) "the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen," neither fact would justify disregarding the clear operative language of this constitutional provision. (79) Likewise, the pre-1787 constitutions of Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont declared that freedom of speech in the legislature was "so essential to the rights of the people" that words spoken there could not the basis of "any" suit. (80) One could not use this declaration to avoid the clear immunity conferred by the operative language, even where particular statements made in the legislature - such as an egregious slander unrelated to a pending bill - were not thought "essential to" the people's rights. (81) In addition, Madison's draft of what became the First Amendment's Free Press Clause read: "the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." (82) The emphasized declaratory language presumably could not have qualified or limited the freedom clearly conferred, such as by exempting from protection, as hostile to "liberty," publications advocating absolute monarchy.

A discussion at the Constitutional Convention demonstrates the same understanding, including that prefaces in a particular constitutional provision might merely state policy. What would become Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution, empowering Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia," had reached its final form. But George Mason proposed "to preface" it with the phrase, "And that the liberties of the people may be better secured against the danger of standing armies in time of peace." He wished "to insert something pointing out and guarding against the danger of" standing armies. Madison spoke in favor, because the preface would "discountenance" a peacetime standing army while "not restrain[ing] Congress from establishing" one. (83) No doubt an organized, armed, and disciplined militia would generally "better secure" liberties against peace-time standing armies (by reducing the need for such armies and the threat from any that were created), and thus the operative grant of power "agree[d] with" the declaratory preface; (84) but the preface did not restrain or confine the power.

We see no reason to except the Second Amendment from this broadly applicable interpretive rule. (85) Thus, the Amendment's declaratory preface could not overcome the unambiguously individual "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" conferred by the operative text - even if the collective-right and quasi-collective-right schools' understanding of the preface's meaning were correct, and even though the preface might help resolve any ambiguities concerning the scope of that individual right remaining after one has analyzed the operative text. At the same time, any interpretation of the right ought, if possible consistent with its text, to further the declared justification in general, as the Court in Miller recognized when it stated that interpretation of the Amendment should keep the "end in view" of assuring the continuation and rendering possible the effectiveness of the militia. (86) As we explain in the remainder of this subpart - considering in turn the meaning of "Militia," what a "well regulated Militia" was, and the ultimate end of "the security of a free State" - the individual-right view does further the ends set forth in the prefatory language, and therefore the preface, properly understood, is fully consistent with the individual-right interpretation of the operative text.

2. The "Militia."

A key claim of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right schools with regard to the Second Amendment's preface is that a "well regulated Militia" is a standing military organization or body of troops, of limited size, organized and governed by state governments, albeit concurrently with the federal Government (akin to voluntary select forces such as the National Guard that were established over a hundred years after the Amendment was adopted). As a result, the argument goes, the Amendment merely protects the States against federal efforts to undermine such forces, either by protecting the States directly or by protecting only persons serving in those forces. (87)

This argument disregards the understanding of the "Militia" at the time of the Founding. As used in the Second Amendment, and elsewhere in the Constitution, "Militia" referred to a body consisting of all adult male citizens up to a certain age (anywhere from forty-five to sixty), the goal being to include all who were physically capable of service. It was not limited to a select force of persons in active military duty. This entire population of able-bodied male citizens was involuntarily "enrolled" by local militia officials, somewhat as men now register for the selective service (except that enrollment required no action by the citizen), and all enrolled citizens were required by law to join occasional "exercise" - to which they were expected to bring their own, private arms - but they otherwise remained in civilian life. The militia "rest[ed] upon the shoulders of the people," (88) because, as then understood, it consisted of a large number of the "people" at any one time and of all of the able-bodied white men for a substantial portion of their lives. It was the people embodied as an armed force. Thus, a key aspect of the term "Militia" was the composition of the force to which it referred. As a result, the reference to the "Militia" in the Second Amendment's preface "agrees with" the individual right that the Amendment's operative text sets out, (89) because securing to "the people" a right to keep and to bear their own arms made such a broad-based, privately armed force more likely to exist and to be effective. (90)

The term "Militia" was used in contrast both to a regular, standing army and, more importantly, to a "select militia" or "corps." (91) The latter distinction is evident throughout contemporaneous usage, "select militia" denoting a significantly smaller body, consisting either of better trained military professionals who could remain active for extended periods, or of those chosen selectively, perhaps because of political or other discrimination. (92) For example, at the Constitutional Convention, George Mason mentioned the need for federal regulation of the militia to ensure that they were adequately trained. He suspected that the States would not relinquish "the power over the whole" but would "over a part as a select militia." He added that "a select militia" would be "as much as the Gen[eral] Gov[ernment] could advantageously be charged with," and thus suggested that it receive power only over "one tenth part" of the militia per year. Oliver Ellsworth, later to be a Senator and Chief Justice, objected because a "select militia" either would be impractical or would cause "a ruinous declension of the great body of the Militia." (93) Edmund Randolph, leader of the Virginia delegation, similarly equated the militia with "the whole mass" of the people. (94)

In the debate over ratification, both sides shared this broad understanding of "Militia." Among the Federalists, Madison in The Federalist predicted that a federal army bent on oppression would be opposed by "a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands" - a group that he likened to the citizen bands that had fought in the Revolution and linked to "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." (95) Alexander Hamilton described the militia as "the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens," "the great body of the people," and "the whole nation," which he contrasted with a "select corps." (96) A Connecticut Federalist writing as "The Republican" praised as "a capital circumstance in favour of our liberty" that "the people of this country have arms in their hands; they are not destitute of military knowledge; every citizen is required by Law to be a soldier; we are all martialed into companies, regiments, and brigades, for the defence of our country." (97) In a speech, later published, in response to South Carolina's vote to ratify, David Ramsay, a state legislator and delegate to the ratifying convention, praised the Constitution's militia powers and asked, "What European power will dare to attack us, when it is known that the yeomanry of the country uniformly armed and disciplined, may on any emergency be called out to our defence . . . ?" (98) Maryland's "Aristides," in a fairly widely circulated pamphlet, wrote simply that "the militia . . . is ourselves." (99)

Among the Anti-Federalists, Mason, in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, asked: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people," while warning that the new Congress might exempt the rich from service. (100) The Federal Farmer, a leading Anti-Federalist essayist, explained that the "militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves," and counseled "that regular troops, and select corps, ought not to be kept up without evident necessity." If the federal Government properly organized, armed, and disciplined the militia - including in it, "according to the past and general usage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms" - the country would have a "genuine" rather than "select militia." Under such wise regulation, "the militia are the people." (101)

This common sense of "Militia" also appeared in the House of Representatives' debates on the Second Amendment, discussed below in Part III.C.2, and the Second Congress applied it in the first Militia Act, enacted in 1792, two months after the Second Amendment was officially ratified. The Act required "each and every able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years," to be "enrolled in the militia" by the local commanding officer. Each enrolled citizen was required to provide his own arms - "a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle" - plus ammunition and accouterments. These private arms were exempted from "all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes." The enrollees were required to appear, armed, "when called out to exercise, or into service," although Congress left the details of exercise to each State. (102) (Since 1792, Congress has only expanded this definition, such as by eliminating the racial restriction and including some women. (103)) Finally, Noah Webster in his 1828 American dictionary defined "militia" in accord with this Act and the above understanding: "The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." They were "enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies." (104)

The analogy of the "Militia" to a select (and voluntary) corps such as the National Guard is further strained by the common-law prohibition against the King's deploying the militia outside the country - a rule that Blackstone celebrated as part of the individual's "absolute right" of "personal liberty." (105) The Constitution appears to incorporate this rule, by specifying domestic reasons for the federal Government to call out the militia: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." (106) Implicit in the common-law rule is that the militia was so composed that its members ought to be treated as ordinary citizens doing their duty, rather than as soldiers. President Taft's Attorney General reaffirmed this ancient rule in 1912 as Congress was developing the modern National Guard, which, partly to avoid this rule, was made a component of the regular military forces. (107)

The Supreme Court in Miller, relying on a brief historical survey, summarized as follows the definition of "Militia" that we have set out and explained above:

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. (108)

If, as the Court recognized and historical usage confirms, the "Militia" was composed of the general population of able-bodied men, an individual right of the whole people to keep and bear arms would make eminent sense. A large portion of the "people" would be required to appear occasionally for service or simply training, and they were expected to bring their private arms. If the people could be disarmed, it would then, among other things, be impossible for militiamen to make the required provision of their privately provided arms when called up, and the citizen militia would be undermined.

3. The "Well Regulated" Militia.

Advocates of the collective-right and quasi-collective-right views argue that the Amendment's reference in its preface to a "well regulated" militia indicates that the preface refers to a select, organized body akin to today's National Guard. They claim additional support for this argument from usage of the term "Militia" elsewhere in the Constitution, in the context of governmental power over the Militia. (109) No doubt the "Militia" was, through enrollment, exercise, and command when activated by a governor or president, a creature of the government. But it does not follow that the meaning of "Militia" as used in the Second Amendment depended on congressional (or state) legislation organizing or regulating the Militia. The word's use elsewhere in the Constitution and the Amendment's prefatory reference to a "well regulated Militia," properly understood, in fact suggest the opposite.

The Constitution distinguishes not only between the "Militia" and the regular armed forces but also between different parts and conditions of the militia. The latter distinctions appear in (1) Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, authorizing Congress to "provide for calling forth the Militia"; (2) the immediately following clause authorizing Congress to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States"; (3) Article II, Section 2, Clause 1, making the President commander-in-chief of "the Militia of the several States" when "called into the actual Service of the United States"; and (4) the Fifth Amendment, which withholds the protection of the Grand Jury Clause from persons whose cases arise in the militia, but only when "in actual service in time of War or public danger" (cases in the army and navy, by contrast, are always exempted).

These provisions indicate that the militia is of a size that will make complete mobilization usually unnecessary, that members of the militia will often not be in service (or that not all parts of the militia will always be in service), and that when any members are not employed in "actual service," they ought to be treated as ordinary citizens. The "Militia" is both large and largely latent. In addition, the reference to "organizing . . . the Militia" suggests an entity that in some sense exists and is definable apart from congressional regulation, in contrast to "Armies," which Congress must "raise," pursuant to another power in Article I, Section 8. Congress might not "organiz[e]" all of the "Militia"; it might organize some parts differently from others; and it would be expected to give necessary precision to the definition of the body's membership by laying down a specific age range for service (as Congress did in the first Militia Act). But the background meaning of the word would remain. As an Anti-Federalist writer recognized: "[T]he militia is divided into two classes, viz. active and inactive," the former, he expected, likely to "consist of young men chiefly." (110) Thus, the use of "Militia" throughout the Constitution is consistent with the common understanding of the word at the Founding.

Nor does the preface's phrase "well regulated" alter this sense of "Militia"; rather, it presupposes it. Having an armed citizenry, which the operative text protects by establishing a right of individuals, becomes a necessary (albeit not sufficient) condition for a well-regulated militia once one properly defines "Militia." As one academic commentator has put it: "The Second Amendment simply forbids one form of inappropriate regulation," which would ensure a militia that was not well regulated, namely "disarming the people from whom the militia must necessarily be drawn. . . . [T]he one thing the government is forbidden to do is infringe the right of the people, who are the source of the militia's members, to keep and bear arms." (111) A militia composed of the whole body of able-bodied male citizens and only infrequently meeting for state-sponsored exercise is more likely to be "well regulated" in the bearing of arms, and can more readily be trained and disciplined, if its members possess their private arms and are accustomed to them from usage for private purposes between exercises. (112) And an individual right of the people to have arms has the indirect effect of securing the ability of States at least to have their militias armed. (113) As the Court stated in Miller, the Second Amendment seeks "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of" the militia of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." (114) It protects the minimum for a well-regulated citizen militia.

In addition, the standard for a "well regulated Militia," as opposed to a well-regulated select militia, or well-regulated army, presupposes the background meaning of "Militia" by taking into account the body's large size and varied source. As the Militia Act of 1792 contemplated, it might be enough to have a county officer enroll persons and ensure that they possessed arms and knew how to use them through basic training once or twice a year. Similarly, the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776 defined "a well-regulated militia" as simply being "composed of the body of the people, trained to arms." (115) And the first New York Constitution declared that "the militia" should always "be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service" because "it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it." (116)

Even those Founders skeptical of the benefits of the citizen militia, and who advocated a more highly regulated select corps, still recognized the distinction between the proper regulation of the two. Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist argued that it would be both "futile" and "injurious" for Congress to attempt to "disciplin[e] all the militia of the United States." Most enrolled citizens would need extensive "time and practice . . . under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would intitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia." But such a burden on so many citizens "would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss." Thus, as to "the people at large," he expected that "[l]ittle more can reasonably be aimed at . . . than to have them properly armed and equipped" and, for this purpose, "assemble them once or twice" a year. He therefore recommended that Congress use its constitutional power to provide for organizing the militia also to form a select militia - "a select corps of moderate size." (117) Hamilton was reiterating George Washington's well-known recommendations to Congress for a two-tiered militia, consisting of (1) "the Citizens of America . . . from 18 to 50 years of age," who would be put "on the Militia Rolls" and given minimal training, and (2) "a Corps in every State" consisting of those aged 18-25. (118) From the opposite political pole, the Federal Farmer likewise recognized that Congress might make just such distinctions in "modelling the militia" and warned that creation of a "select corps of militia" would lead to "inattention to the general militia." (119)

This understanding of the "well regulated Militia," and of the possibilities for congressional organization of it (or not), leads to a view of the preface that not only fits the meaning of "Militia" in common contemporaneous usage, including throughout the Constitution, but also most agrees with the meaning of the Second Amendment's operative text setting out a "right of the people." The "well regulated Militia" and the "people" were not identical, but because of their close relationship, a right of the latter - of individuals - to keep and bear arms would facilitate the former. By contrast, a view rejecting the individual right on the basis of the preface's reference to the "well regulated Militia" struggles to harmonize the operative language establishing a seemingly general and individual right with that prefatory language. As Justice Scalia has written, a narrow definition of "Militia" "produces a guarantee that goes far beyond its stated purpose - rather like saying 'police officers being necessary to law and order, the right of the people to carry handguns shall not be infringed.'" (120) The "Militia" on this erroneous view consists only of those few citizens whom a State chooses to specially organize, arm, and train into professional units, which requires one to reject the normal, unambiguous meaning of the operative text as overbroad, rewriting "the people" to mean either "the select militia" or "the State." If that were the true meaning, the Amendment's authors chose singularly inartful language.



Have fun!

Part 2 of 2



4. The "Security of a Free State."

The preface's express linking of the "well regulated Militia" to the ultimate necessity of "the security of a free State" is also fully consistent with the conclusion that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is a personal one. The security of a free state at the Founding no doubt was understood to include those things necessary to the security of any state, such as "to execute the Laws . . . , suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." (121) But the security of a free State was not just these things. It also was understood to include the security of freedom in a state. Thus, while Blackstone recognized the individual liberty of the press as "essential to the nature of a free state," pre-1787 state constitutions described the same right as "essential to the security of freedom in a state." (122) The Preamble of the Constitution states the goal of making "secure the Blessings of Liberty," and the Fourth Amendment highlights the importance of the individual "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects." A secure free State was one in which liberties and rights were secure.

This clause of the Second Amendment's preface reinforces the individual right to keep and bear arms in two related ways - by supporting the broad meaning of "Militia" set out above, and by identifying a benefit for individuals of the right that the operative text secures. First, to say at the time of the Founding that the militia was necessary to the security of a "free State" was to refer to the citizen militia, composed of the people, who retained the right to keep and use their private weapons. A select militia, particularly if it existed to the exclusion of the citizen militia, might undermine the free state, if citizens excluded from it were left defenseless, or if it disarmed the citizens and infringed their other rights (or both). As we show in Part III.A, that is what had happened in England during the strife that produced in 1689 the express right of individual subjects to have and use arms for their defense, the ancestor of the right in the Second Amendment. (123) Thus the Virginia Declaration of Rights, the only state bill of rights before the adoption of the Second Amendment that expressly tied the militia to the security "of a free State," also emphasized that the "militia" was "composed of the body of the people." (124)

Contemporaneous writers across the political spectrum acknowledged the link between the citizen militia and securing the freedom of a state. "The Republican" praised "a militia of freemen" as among the "principal circumstances which render liberty secure," and singled out as "a capital circumstance in favour of our liberty" that "the people themselves are the military power of our country," having "arms in their hands" and "military knowledge." (125) The Federal Farmer listed among the "military forces of a free country" the "militia," by which he meant "the people themselves . . . when properly formed." A citizen militia was critical to "the duration of a free and mild government." Absent it, and in the face of an "anti-republican" select militia, "the substantial men, having families and property, will generally be without arms, without knowing the use of them, and defenceless; whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." (126) James Burgh, a Scotsman whose 1774 Political Disquisitions were well-known in America, including being cited in The Federalist, wrote that a "good militia" formed "the chief part of the constitution of every free government" and would "preserve the public liberty." He added that "[t]he possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. . . . [H]e who thinks he is his own master, and has anything he may call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself and what he possesses, or else he lives precariously and at discretion." (127) Thus, "every male" should be trained in the use of arms, or at least "all men of property." (128)

Second, and related, the freedom of a state was understood at the time of the Founding to include a citizen's individual right of self-defence (that is, defense of his right to life and personal security) when the state cannot assist him. An individual right to arms such as that secured by the Second Amendment's operative text helps to preserve this basic right and thus a free state. As the preface indicates, the existence of a well-regulated citizen militia further secures the link between such an individual right and this aspect of a free state (by increasing the number of persons equipped and trained to exercise the right well), but, as the discussion of the militia in the previous paragraph suggests, this link was not understood to be confined to one's actions while participating in even such a broad-based entity. (129) Blackstone's summary of key English rights explains this point. With no mention of the militia, he described the "right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence" as the last security of individual English subjects for keeping the state, including themselves, free:

[T]he rights, or, as they are frequently termed, the liberties of Englishmen . . . consist primarily, in the free enjoyment of personal security, of personal liberty, and of private property. So long as these remain inviolate, the subject is perfectly free; for every species of compulsive tyranny and oppression must act in opposition to one or other of these rights, having no other object upon which it can possibly be employed. To preserve these from violation, it is necessary, that the constitution of parliament be supported in its full vigour; and limits, certainly known, be set to the royal prerogative. And lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next, to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defence.

This right to arms, Blackstone added, facilitates self-defense "when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." (130) John Locke, although not explicitly discussing arms, similarly explained the individual right of self-defense that a free society allows. Discussing the right of self-defense against a robber, he wrote: "I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else." Therefore "the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence." (131)

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the ability of a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" to further the Second Amendment preface's ultimate end of the "security of a free State" consisted not merely in the existence of a trained band ready to act as soldiers should the State's government call upon them, but also in the ability of the citizens (many of them part of the privately armed citizen militia), by individually keeping and bearing arms, to help secure the freedoms of the State and its citizens. (132) Thus, the "people" in the Second Amendment were distinct from the "Militia" and a "State," but a right of the people to keep and bear arms was understood both to facilitate a well-regulated militia and to help maintain a State that was free. By contrast, the collective-right and quasi-collective-right views would sanction not only the creation of a select militia (to the exclusion of the citizen militia) but also the disarming of the rest of the citizenry, a result antithetical to the true "Militia" as understood at the Founding and to the "free State" that the Founding Generation understood it to secure.

D. Structural Considerations

Our conclusion that the text of the Second Amendment protects an individual right is further confirmed by the structure of the Constitution, in particular the Amendment's placement and its inter-relation with the powers that the Constitution grants over the militia.

1. The Bill of Rights.

The Second Amendment is embedded within the Bill of Rights. Every one of the other rights and freedoms set forth in the first nine amendments of the Bill - whether or not phrased as a "right of the people" - protects individuals, not governments; none of its provisions protects persons only in connection with service to the government. (133) As Thomas Cooley summarized, writing of the Bill's first eight amendments, "[I]t is declared that certain enumerated liberties of the people shall not be taken away or abridged." (134) It is therefore reasonable to interpret the Second Amendment to protect individuals just as the rest of these nine amendments do.

More particularly, the Second Amendment is located within a subset of the Bill of Rights amendments, the First through Fourth, that relates most directly to personal freedoms (as opposed to judicial procedure regulating deprivation by the government of one's life, liberty, or property) - the amendments that, in Story's words in his Commentaries, "principally regard subjects properly belonging to a bill of rights." (135) These four amendments concern liberties that are tied to the right of individuals to possess and use certain property (the printing "press" in the First Amendment, (136) "house[s]" in the Third's restriction on quartering soldiers, and "houses, papers, and effects" in the Fourth's restriction on searches and seizures), or otherwise to act without undue governmental interference (worship, speech, assembly and petition). Again, it seems reasonable to interpret the Second Amendment, consistently with this context, to set out another personal liberty (keeping and bearing) and privileged form of individual property (arms), useful for protecting not only the citizen's person but also the "houses" that the Third and Fourth Amendments guard. (137)

Finally, the right in the Second Amendment immediately follows the right to assemble and petition, which concludes the First Amendment. The latter right is undeniably personal and individual, not depending on governmental organization, regulation, or service. And the two are aligned, not only in their placement but also in their origin, purpose, and limitations. Antecedents of both appeared in proximity in the English Bill of Rights of 1689. (138) Blackstone, in the passage block-quoted in the previous subpart, discussed in immediate succession their dual utility as guards of the great individual rights of life, liberty, and property, (139) and he did likewise in discussing the criminal law's limitations on abuses of those rights. (140) St. George Tucker, the first leading American commentator on Blackstone and the Constitution (discussed more in Part IV.A, below), noted that both rights had been transplanted to the United States from England, both stripped of many English restrictions. (141) It follows that the former right - that secured by the Second Amendment - also would be individual.

2. The Militia Powers.

Interpreting the Second Amendment in light of the militia powers granted to the federal Government and the States in the original Constitution likewise suggests an individual right to keep and bear arms rather than a "right" of States, against the federal Government, to maintain select militias or a quasi-collective right to be exercised only by persons who serve in such entities. Clauses 15 and 16 of Article I, Section 8, respectively grant power to Congress:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; [and]

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

In addition, Article II, Section 2, makes the President "Commander-in-Chief . . . of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."

These clauses, independently of the Second Amendment, presuppose the existence of functioning state militias and leave significant powers over them to the States. The States expressly retain the powers to appoint all officers and to train the militia according to federally specified rules. They implicitly retain the power of "governing" any parts of the militias not in actual service to the federal Government, and of having those state-appointed officers govern the militias even when in such service, subject to the President's supreme authority. The provision regarding officers is why Hamilton could argue credibly in The Federalist that the States always would retain "a preponderating influence over the militia." (142) The Constitution, in elsewhere prohibiting States from "keep[ing] Troops, or Ships of War in time of peace," while still allowing them to "engage in War" if "actually invaded" or under an imminent threat, contemplates that the States will have, and have power to employ, usable militias to provide necessary defense and emergency war-making ability. (143) More broadly, the States implicitly retain the power to call out the militia on their own for domestic purposes. (144)

The original Constitution also leaves to the States concurrent power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining their militias, so long in so doing they do not interfere with the federal power. This interpretation has been recognized from the beginning: At the critical Virginia Ratifying Convention, Henry Lee (future governor of Virginia and congressman), Edmund Randolph (a Framer who became the first Attorney General), Madison, and John Marshall all made this textual argument in response to attacks on the federal power to make such provision. (145) Story found the arguments for such a concurrent power "in their structure and reasoning satisfactory and conclusive." (146) The Supreme Court approved this reading in 1820 in Houston v. Moore, (147) and has recently reiterated it. Looking to the "general plan" of the Constitution, the Court noted in 1990 that, "Were it not for the Militia Clauses, it might be possible to argue," much as one could regarding federal power over foreign policy and the armed forces, "that the constitutional allocation of powers precluded the formation of organized state militia. The Militia Clauses, however, subordinate any such structural inferences to an express permission while also subjecting state militia to express federal limitations." (148) Even the Ninth Circuit in Silveira so interpreted Article I, Section 8, Clause 16: "The language indicates that the grant of power [to Congress] is permissive. . . . Nothing in the Article or elsewhere in the Constitution appears to bar the states from choosing to arm their respective militias as they wish." (149)

In at least two respects, the above militia powers in the Constitution suggest an individual-right view of the Second Amendment. First, any constitutional amendment securing to the States power to maintain militias would have been largely redundant, whether the amendment protected the power through a "right" of States or a right restricted to persons serving in militia units that a State had organized. A provision should not be read to be redundant if another reasonable interpretation exists, and the individual-right view of the Amendment is such an interpretation. Second, one also would expect a protection of the States' militia powers to use language analogous to that of Clause 16, which concludes by "reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (150) Clause 16's parallel to the protection of state power in the Tenth Amendment, which provides that certain powers are "reserved to the States respectively" (while mentioning "the people" separately), is unmistakable, as is the contrast between such language and the Second Amendment's protection of a "right of the people." Given the ready availability of such language, it would be both surprising and inartful for a protection of state authority to create and maintain organized militias to be phrased as the Second Amendment is, whether one conceives of the protection as belonging to the States directly or to those serving it.

The Militia Clauses therefore suggest that the Second Amendment, to the extent that it furthers the States' authority to maintain organized militias, does so indirectly, as we discussed in the previous subpart (II.C.2&3), by ensuring the minimum of a "well regulated Militia" - that the States' people, the pool for the citizen militia, would continue to be able to keep and to bear their private arms, having them ready and being familiar with them. Thus the Militia Clauses, along with the structure of the Bill of Rights and the preface of the Second Amendment, all support the personal, individual right to keep and bear arms that the Amendment's operative text sets out.

Fin.

Here ya go.

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

Part 1 of 2 since it's damned long.




Have fun!

Get a grip.

I can cut-and-paste too. This is not argument.

If you wish to debate, why don't you try responding to some of the points I made?

Otherwise, you are either trolling or spamming.

Get a grip.

I can cut-and-paste too. This is not argument.

If you wish to debate, why don't you try responding to some of the points I made?

Otherwise, you are either trolling or spamming.
Actually I'm making a valid point. As you have so kindly noted I'm naught but a freshman in college. On the other hand, the DOJ was kind enough to make my arguement in total for me. Now, if you are so firm in your convictions obviously there has to be something glaringly wrong in their assesment of the 2nd's definition. Since you yourself are in the law field your intellect should be more than great enough to find it.

Violent crime has risen though...have a look at these.

Sexual Offences (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page24.asp)

Sexual assault on a female (http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page28.asp)

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page29.asp

http://www.crimestatistics.org.uk/output/Page42.asp
Did you read the comments below those charts? In 1998, the method of reporting and types of reporting changed, which are responsible for the increase.

Now, even if sexual assaults did increase, was it due to increased use of firearms? I think that would be important for you to figure out, in order for you to pursue your argument?

Actually, I find it kind of humourous to be debating the relative safety of the UK compared to the US. Try this one on for size. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir)

In 1999, the US recorded 8,259 murders by firearms, or an average of 22.62 per day. In the same year, there was only 62 murders in the UK by firearms, or an average of 0.16 per day. In other words, in 3 days, the US would murder MORE people by use of firearms than the UK would for an ENTIRE year!! :eek:

The evidence is perponderous:

More Guns = More Deaths

*CanuckHeaven* makes note not to use any "canards" in a debate with The Cat-Tribe. :D

The evidence is perponderous:

More Guns = More Deaths
Actually, the evidence is not preponderous. A single general correlation using only two factors, deaths and guns, does not indicate a direct connection. Sheesh, not that complicated.

While Cat-tribe has pointed out before (and I agree) that the Second Amendment (at least as far as the courts are concerned) has little to do with the individual right to bear arms, there are state constitutions (such as Vermont) that enshrine it as an individual right.

More to the point, the Constitution does not move to remove that right from the individual. It does not say, for instance, that the people shall not have the right to bear arms.

And, if you live in the right state, one of 33, you can carry concealed on a "shall issue" permit (your requirements being that you took a class on concealed carry, and are not a felon).

If you do, you'll enjoy crime rates that are dropping faster than the ice "blue" urban centers, where guns are essentially forbidden to legal gun owners, but miraculously are as common as the also-forbidden crack rock and meth amongst the poorest members of our society.

While Cat-tribe has pointed out before (and I agree) that the Second Amendment (at least as far as the courts are concerned) has little to do with the individual right to bear arms, there are state constitutions (such as Vermont) that enshrine it as an individual right.

More to the point, the Constitution does not move to remove that right from the individual. It does not say, for instance, that the people shall not have the right to bear arms.

And, if you live in the right state, one of 33, you can carry concealed on a "shall issue" permit (your requirements being that you took a class on concealed carry, and are not a felon).

If you do, you'll enjoy crime rates that are dropping faster than the ice "blue" urban centers, where guns are essentially forbidden to legal gun owners, but miraculously are as common as the also-forbidden crack rock and meth amongst the poorest members of our society.

Agreed - up to the last paragraph.

Of course, the widespread availability of guns elsewhere in the US may have something to do with how easily criminals obtain guns where they are more heavily regulated.

Did you read the comments below those charts? In 1998, the method of reporting and types of reporting changed, which are responsible for the increase.

I don't believe that it says how the reporting method changed. The crimes could have been slighty higher depending upon the changes which weren't stated.

Now, even if sexual assaults did increase, was it due to increased use of firearms?

No, quite the contrary. People who are sexual predators prey upon people who are unable to defend themself. Since firearm bans take protection away from law abiding citizens and not criminal I would ascertain that the crime rate went up in those areas because fewer people were able to defend themself. :rolleyes:

Actually, I find it kind of humourous to be debating the relative safety of the UK compared to the US.

I was not debating the relative safety of the US compared to the UK. My statement was that crime, especially violent crime, increased after handguns were banned. The proof is in the Home Office reports. 2004 was the first year to show a decrease since 1995.

The methods for reporting crimes and recording crimes between the US and the UK are far too varied to even attempt to compare the crime rates between the two. Are you aware that in the US if a robber is killed in a car accident while running from the police and if that robber has a gun in the car that the incident is recorded as a gun related death? :eek:

On top of that the only way to compare violent deaths would be to throw them all in a pile, without regards to the type of violence, and determine on a per capita basis. How about we just go back to knives and see how many deaths the UK has by knives or other kinds of blades vs what the US has? I bet that on a per capita basis the UK has more death by blades than the US. So ban them too, then you'll get more deaths by bludgeoning weapons.

By removing the guns you don't remove violent tendencies you only transfer the method of violence to something else.

Agreed - up to the last paragraph.

Of course, the widespread availability of guns elsewhere in the US may have something to do with how easily criminals obtain guns where they are more heavily regulated.

Explain where the fully automatic weapons come from - since 1934, every registered fully automatic weapon and silencer has been accounted for (since the inception of the National Firearms Act), and NONE have ever been used in the commission of a crime.

None.

We're talking law-abiding gun owners. And none have gone missing. Which is a far better record than fully automatic weapons in the hands of police (including the FBI).

Over 100,000 firearms - and none in a crime, none unaccounted for.

So where are the street criminals getting their fully automatic weapons?

Certainly not from the local gun store, and certainly not from a gun show.

Probably from the same place they get their cocaine, eh?

Actually, the evidence is not preponderous. A single general correlation using only two factors, deaths and guns, does not indicate a direct connection. Sheesh, not that complicated.
No it really isn't that complicated, on purpose. Simplicity works for me. :cool:

Explain where the fully automatic weapons come from - since 1934, every registered fully automatic weapon and silencer has been accounted for (since the inception of the National Firearms Act), and NONE have ever been used in the commission of a crime.

None.

We're talking law-abiding gun owners. And none have gone missing. Which is a far better record than fully automatic weapons in the hands of police (including the FBI).

Over 100,000 firearms - and none in a crime, none unaccounted for.

So where are the street criminals getting their fully automatic weapons?

Certainly not from the local gun store, and certainly not from a gun show.

Probably from the same place they get their cocaine, eh?

Did I say the only place that criminals get their guns is from where they are legal in the US? No.

Is it a factor? Yes.

Do you deny guns are purchased legally in some parts of the US and then smuggled into areas where they are regulated?

Did I say the only place that criminals get their guns is from where they are legal in the US? No.

Is it a factor? Yes.

Do you deny guns are purchased legally in some parts of the US and then smuggled into areas where they are regulated?

No, but I would submit that the majority of crime guns are stolen, not purchased. Not even purchased by the Sarah Brady method (straw man purchase, which she did for her son in violation of the law).

I'll have to look around for the statistics, but IIRC, it's somewhere around 80 percent are stolen, not purchased.

We're still up against the fact that the majority of violent crime is not committed with a weapon of any sort (purely strongarm violence).

I'll say this - the police are not effective. They are completely ineffective in the restriction of any illegal material - drugs, guns, or otherwise. They are nearly ineffective in preventing violent crime - they excel at showing up after the fact. Detective work is nearly worthless. Life is not liks CSI. Protective orders are useful only as toilet paper in a violent situation.

No, but I would submit that the majority of crime guns are stolen, not purchased. Not even purchased by the Sarah Brady method (straw man purchase, which she did for her son in violation of the law).

I'll have to look around for the statistics, but IIRC, it's somewhere around 80 percent are stolen, not purchased.

We're still up against the fact that the majority of violent crime is not committed with a weapon of any sort (purely strongarm violence).

I'll say this - the police are not effective. They are completely ineffective in the restriction of any illegal material - drugs, guns, or otherwise. They are nearly ineffective in preventing violent crime - they excel at showing up after the fact. Detective work is nearly worthless. Life is not liks CSI. Protective orders are useful only as toilet paper in a violent situation.

Stolen from where? Legal gun owners? :eek:

I am not convinced that gun control is a solution to violence or crime.

But I definitely think the ubiquity of guns does not help. Sometimes guns prevent crime. But the easy availability of guns also produces some crime.

The unwillingness of the public to properly fund the police doesn't help either.

The unwillingness of the public to properly fund the police doesn't help either.


I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. Better pay for police = better police officers in general. They also need better equipment. Cops just don't make enough money and a lot of them end up working two jobs which makes them even less effective.

Stolen from where? Legal gun owners? :eek:

I am not convinced that gun control is a solution to violence or crime.

But I definitely think the ubiquity of guns does not help. Sometimes guns prevent crime. But the easy availability of guns also produces some crime.

The unwillingness of the public to properly fund the police doesn't help either.

Whilst the last point is probably the most valid, I'd point that guns prevent more crimes than they permit. I believe it to be mainly the ideas associated with guns more than rational disagreement which fuels most of the pro gun-control viewpoints.

:sniper: any semi competent mechanic or machinist or just a hobbiest could make a gun in about 30 seconds,far more visous wounds would occur.think about how long guns have been around,gunpowder for that matter.the problem never was guns...what it is and always be is people.i have had guns for 20 years,never once have i shot in anger,don't even like hunting,but the police do not have the responsibility to protect indiv.,even if they could.they are to protect the community..not indiv.
that respon. falls on you,if u prefer to be helpless,be my guest,not me.
i'll protect me and mine,as well as you,so don't u dare to presume u know what is better for me.u must live in a faity tale world if u believe the police will be there when ur in danger,they are just plain streched to thin.by the way,almost all the cops i know are not only pro gun for the citizen,but pro carry as well.because they know how violent are culture is and they can't be everywhere.guns cause crime, like kitchen knives cause stabbings...that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.

The unwillingness of the public to properly fund the police doesn't help either.

Let's postulate a world where there is a policeman watching each person. Living with each person - and the policeman has a supervisory position over each citizen.

The kid who shot up the school was living with his grandfather - an armed policeman.

Fat lot of good that did.

You're still not able to get over Warren vs. District of Columbia. The police don't have to show up when you call - ever. Nice work by SCOTUS.

Whilst the last point is probably the most valid, I'd point that guns prevent more crimes than they permit. I believe it to be mainly the ideas associated with guns more than rational disagreement which fuels most of the pro gun-control viewpoints.

That is the third time today I have been psycho-analyzed as to why I support some reasonable gun control.

I have tried to refrain from broad categorizations of those who are pro-gun.

I suggest that many who support gun control have seen the horrors that guns can cause, are familiar with the statistics about the dangers of guns, and/or believe it is illogical to have more regulations of automobiles than there are of guns. Or have dozens of other valid reasons.

I believe it is rational to disagree. Please extend the same courtesy.

(BTW, I'll admit I can be a nasty prick at times and not always civil. But I've grown tired of these sweeping generalizations about anyone that supports any restrictions or regulations of firearms.)

That is the third time today I have been psycho-analyzed as to why I support some reasonable gun control.

I have tried to refrain from broad categorizations of those who are pro-gun.

I suggest that many who support gun control have seen the horrors that guns can cause, are familiar with the statistics about the dangers of guns, and/or believe it is illogical to have more regulations of automobiles than there are of guns. Or have dozens of other valid reasons.

I believe it is rational to disagree. Please extend the same courtesy.

(BTW, I'll admit I can be a nasty prick at times and not always civil. But I've grown tired of these sweeping generalizations about anyone that supports any restrictions or regulations of firearms.)


Cat-tribe, you're just my polar opposite from another dimension. If you look in the mirror, and imagine yourself with pointed ears and a goatee, you'll be looking at me.

That is the third time today I have been psycho-analyzed as to why I support some reasonable gun control.

I have tried to refrain from broad categorizations of those who are pro-gun.

I suggest that many who support gun control have seen the horrors that guns can cause, are familiar with the statistics about the dangers of guns, and/or believe it is illogical to have more regulations of automobiles than there are of guns. Or have dozens of other valid reasons.

I believe it is rational to disagree. Please extend the same courtesy.

(BTW, I'll admit I can be a nasty prick at times and not always civil. But I've grown tired of these sweeping generalizations about anyone that supports any restrictions or regulations of firearms.)

Well, the thing is, it can't be being based off any other criteria. It's not numbers, as that's disproven again and again. So it pretty much has to boil down to sensationalism - guns are somehow 'worse' to be attacked with than knives are.

And I don't believe most of the automobile regulations are really right, anyways :p Speed limits, DUI, those sorts of things are all perfectly rational, but it's rather akin to laws about discharging firearms within city limits. To simply ban/limit guns to the police is more like only allowing those who compete in F1 and NASCAR to own cars.

Let's postulate a world where there is a policeman watching each person. Living with each person - and the policeman has a supervisory position over each citizen.

The kid who shot up the school was living with his grandfather - an armed policeman.

Fat lot of good that did.

You're still not able to get over Warren vs. District of Columbia. The police don't have to show up when you call - ever. Nice work by SCOTUS.

I don't believe Warren v. District of Columbia was a Supreme Court case. Nor do I believe that is an entirely accurate description of what the ruling was. Do you have a citation?

Cat-tribe, you're just my polar opposite from another dimension. If you look in the mirror, and imagine yourself with pointed ears and a goatee, you'll be looking at me.

:D

That is the third time today I have been psycho-analyzed as to why I support some reasonable gun control.



The problem CT, is that many influential individuals who propose what they call "reasonable" gun control follow the precepts of Diane Fienstein. The senator who stated "Mr. & Mrs. America, turn them all in". Also, in every case where "reasonable" gun controls were established, it resulted in nearly absolute bans on firearms within a few years.

I don't believe Warren v. District of Columbia was a Supreme Court case. Nor do I believe that is an entirely accurate description of what the ruling was. Do you have a citation?
http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

The decision is an affirmation of
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.

It means that if you call the police, they don't have to show up in time to stop anything, no matter how much money you spend on them. Even a protective order is not considered a "special relationship", despite legislative efforts in various states to make it so.

I don't believe that it says how the reporting method changed. The crimes could have been slighty higher depending upon the changes which weren't stated.
You read all of the Home Office Report (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/hosb1004.pdf) and you don't agree with it? I suggest that you take that matter up with them then.

No, quite the contrary. People who are sexual predators prey upon people who are unable to defend themself. Since firearm bans take protection away from law abiding citizens and not criminal I would ascertain that the crime rate went up in those areas because fewer people were able to defend themself. :rolleyes:
The State of Florida has had the right to carry concealed weapon law for carrying guns since 1987. Can you explain then why rapes in Florida (http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/statebystaterun.cfm?stateid=10) increased from 6,032 in 1987 to a high of 7,599 in 1997?

I was not debating the relative safety of the US compared to the UK. My statement was that crime, especially violent crime, increased after handguns were banned. The proof is in the Home Office reports. 2004 was the first year to show a decrease since 1995.
Again, did you read the same Home Office Reports that I read?

• Since the peak in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 39 per cent, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by roughly half and violent crime falling by over a third during this period.

• The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995 to 26 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2003/04, the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981.

Again, if you have a problem with the way that they have presented their report, perhaps you could email them and ask them to send you an explanation?

The methods for reporting crimes and recording crimes between the US and the UK are far too varied to even attempt to compare the crime rates between the two. Are you aware that in the US if a robber is killed in a car accident while running from the police and if that robber has a gun in the car that the incident is recorded as a gun related death? :eek:
It is? Where did you find that information? BTW, how often would that happen......yeah not too often?

On top of that the only way to compare violent deaths would be to throw them all in a pile, without regards to the type of violence, and determine on a per capita basis. How about we just go back to knives and see how many deaths the UK has by knives or other kinds of blades vs what the US has? I bet that on a per capita basis the UK has more death by blades than the US. So ban them too, then you'll get more deaths by bludgeoning weapons.
Well the UK only had a total of 850 murders in 2000, and 62 were by firearm. Be my guest and investigate the method of murder if you wish. It certainly is far easier to shoot someone than stab them.

BTW, in regards to murders by capita, the UK ranked 46th out of 50 countries, Canada was 44th, and Australia was 43rd (all with a murder rate of 0.01 per 1000 people). The US was 24th with a murder rate of 0.04 per 1000 people. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap)
By removing the guns you don't remove violent tendencies you only transfer the method of violence to something else.
Like I said earlier, it is easier to kill people with a handgun or rifle than it is with a knife. In 3 days, the US will shoot to death as many people as will be shot to death in the UK in an entire year. :eek:

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

The decision is an affirmation of
"the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen." The duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists.

It means that if you call the police, they don't have to show up in time to stop anything, no matter how much money you spend on them. Even a protective order is not considered a "special relationship", despite legislative efforts in various states to make it so.

I thought that was the case. D.C. Court of Appeals - not the Supreme Court.

And they question was whether there was a special relationship giving rise to liability. No, you cannot sue the police for failing to protect you as a normal citizen.

I doubt believe a protective order was at issue in the case -- but I think you are right that it does not create police liability.

Do you really think the taxpayers should pay every time the police "fail to protect" a citizen?

I thought that was the case. D.C. Court of Appeals - not the Supreme Court.

And they question was whether there was a special relationship giving rise to liability. No, you cannot sue the police for failing to protect you as a normal citizen.

I doubt believe a protective order was at issue in the case -- but I think you are right that it does not create police liability.

Do you really think the taxpayers should pay every time the police "fail to protect" a citizen?

No, I don't think it's realistic for the police to be everywhere, all the time, no matter how many police there are, or how much money you spend on them.

Ultimately, your personal protection is up to you. If someone isn't willing to protect themselves, and instead relies completely on the police to do the job, they are in for a rude surprise.

The issue of a protective order creating a "special responsibility" is a new issue these days - police departments are loathe to enforce them as the legislatures in some states have written the law to support them - it would imply a 24 hour a day guard service provided by the police - and yet there are current suits brought for the police department disregarding this "special responsibility".

Once again, if you're counting on a protective order to protect you, you're as good as dead when the ex-husband shows up.

Here in Virginia, if you end up shooting your ex-husband, and he's on your property, and you had a no trespass order served, and a protective order, it's like having a hunting permit. He's been proven in court prior to the shooting that he's a lethal threat. Abusive ex-husbands seem to know all about this "bright line" - they fear an armed woman with a hunting permit. They don't fear the police, and they don't fear arrest for criminal trespass, or even the unlikely conviction for stalking.

Wow. It must have been really tough to cut and past that crap from Guns & Ammo magazine! :rolleyes:
Everything you say comes from here (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/rk0405/), here (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/british_path_to_hell/), and here (http://www.gunsandammomag.com/second_amendment/dictatorship_of_decorum/).

Now, let's look at some real figures from a real source - the UK Home Office:
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2004/07/22/crime_englandwales_jul04.pdf
Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf) (see pages 2 & 51)

What? All crime and all violence have been steadily decreasing in the UK since 1995? :eek:

Wanna give credit to the gun ban? :D

Well I'm certainly glad that you have done your homework. However just because my info comes from Guns and Ammo magazine does that make it any less true? Also I have noticed that you dislike others who cut and paste article sections yet you do the same. :confused:

I would also be happy to provide you with some more info. The first piece you may be interested in seeing comes from your beloved Home Office of England.Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf) (please read pg 55) ;)

This is after the Australia's first year under their gun bans:

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
-Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association

Here is a fairly recent article on Canada, Great Gritain, and Australia:

Gun control has not worked in Canada. Since the new gun registration program started in 1998, the U.S. homicide rate has fallen, but the Canadian rate has increased. The net cost of Canada's gun registry has surged beyond $1-billion -- more than 500 times the amount originally estimated. Despite this, the Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration. Public confidence in the government's ability to fight crime has also eroded, with one recent survey showing only 17% of voters support the registration program.
Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

- John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer article published Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at The National Post.

Here is an interesting report made by the Univ. of Portland in England:

http://www.port.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/filestorage/filetodownload,27967,en.pdf (Article on crime in GB, Brent burough)

Another factual tidbit, this one from the Univ. of Chicago:

Recent work by professor John R. Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago has shown that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime - without any apparent increase in accidental death or suicide. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed-carry gun laws cuts death rates from public, multiple shootings like those in Littleton, Colo., this year or Dunblane, Scotland in 1996.
Professor Lott found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. For each additional year concealed-carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by more than 2 percent and rape by 1 percent.(5)
"Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. States with "right-to carry" laws have a 19% lower homicide rate and a 39% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry. The nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states." -Professor Lott

I stand ready to answer any other questions posed for me just ask.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

Well I'm certainly glad that you have done your homework. However just because my info comes from Guns and Ammo magazine does that make it any less true? Also I have noticed that you dislike others who cut and paste article sections yet you do the same. :confused:

Where have you seen me cut and paste unattributed information?

Where have you seen me make massive cut and pastes?

I would also be happy to provide you with some more info. The first piece you may be interested in seeing comes from your beloved Home Office of England.Crime in England and Wales 2001/2002 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb702.pdf) (please read pg 55) ;)

Wow. In a 199 page report you found one crime statistic that makes it look like crime is going up. Of course, if you had paid attention, you would have noted that it was of robberies reported to the police and that the increase was misleading because (a) of change in the way reports were counted and (b) increased reports != increased crime, but just increased rate of reporting.

Nice try, but no cigar.

This is after the Australia's first year under their gun bans:

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
-Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association

Here is a fairly recent article on Canada, Great Gritain, and Australia:

Gun control has not worked in Canada. Since the new gun registration program started in 1998, the U.S. homicide rate has fallen, but the Canadian rate has increased. The net cost of Canada's gun registry has surged beyond $1-billion -- more than 500 times the amount originally estimated. Despite this, the Canadian government recently admitted it could not identify a single violent crime that had been solved through registration. Public confidence in the government's ability to fight crime has also eroded, with one recent survey showing only 17% of voters support the registration program.
Crime did not fall in England after handguns were banned in 1997. Quite the contrary, crime rose sharply. In May, the British government reported that gun crime in England and Wales nearly doubled in the last four years. Serious violent crime rates from 1997 to 2002 averaged 29% higher than 1996; robbery was 24% higher; murders 27% higher. Before the law, armed robberies had fallen by 50% from 1993 to 1997, but as soon as handguns were banned, the armed robbery rate shot back up, almost back to their 1993 levels. The violent crime rate in England is now double that in the United States.
Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%. Australia's violent crime rate is also now double America's. In contrast, the United States took the opposite approach and made it easier for individuals to carry guns. Thirty-seven of the 50 states now have right-to-carry laws that let law-abiding adults carry concealed handguns once they pass a criminal background check. Violent crime in the United States has fallen much faster than in Canada, and violent crime has fallen even faster inright-to-carry states than for the nation as a whole. The states with the fastest growth in gun ownership have also experienced the biggest drops in violent crime rates.

- John R. Lott Jr. and Eli Lehrer article published Tuesday, June 15, 2004, at The National Post.

Here is an interesting report made by the Univ. of Portland in England:

http://www.port.ac.uk/newsandevents/news/filestorage/filetodownload,27967,en.pdf (Article on crime in GB, Brent burough)

Another factual tidbit, this one from the Univ. of Chicago:

Recent work by professor John R. Lott Jr. at the University of Chicago has shown that allowing people to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime - without any apparent increase in accidental death or suicide. While neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed-carry gun laws cuts death rates from public, multiple shootings like those in Littleton, Colo., this year or Dunblane, Scotland in 1996.
Professor Lott found that when concealed-carry laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent and aggravated assaults by 7 percent. For each additional year concealed-carry gun laws have been in effect, the murder rate declines by 3 percent, robberies by more than 2 percent and rape by 1 percent.(5)
"Right-to-carry laws require law enforcement agencies to issue handgun permits to all qualified applicants. States with "right-to carry" laws have a 19% lower homicide rate and a 39% lower robbery rate than states that allow little or no concealed carry. The nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states." -Professor Lott

I stand ready to answer any other questions posed for me just ask.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

If you had paid attention to this thread, "Professor" Lott is thoroughly unreliable. I explained this here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8512455&postcount=33) and no one has contradicted me.

I'll repeat it for you:

OK, beyond the self-evidence of his views, John Lott is an untrustworthy idiot because:

He claims he lost one of his most controversial studies: Another firearms scholar whose dog ate his data. (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2078084)

He pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.Choose a weapon: Fudged data. False identities. No holds are barred in the academic duel over guns and violence (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030210/10guns.htm)

He presented results purporting to show that "more guns" led to "less crime" when those results were the product of coding errors.
Double Barreled Double Standards (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html)

Much more on John Lott's erroneous "studies" and unethical conduct are exposed at this website (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/) and at HCI here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott).

As for your Australia figures, do you have an actual source?

Nevermind, here are real sources:

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4509.0 Crime and Safety, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime and safety survey (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/958AD34831D7BCC8CA256DEA00053A64)
Australian Crime Rates Falling (http://www.findlaw.com.au/news/default.asp?task=read&id=22869&site=CN)
Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf)
Australian crime : facts and figures 2004 (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/fig002.html)

These figures don't quite match yours, do they? I wonder why? :p

well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?



Yes, because the system aimed to deter drug smuggling is such a model of success. Make sense.

If you had paid attention to this thread, "Professor" Lott is thoroughly unreliable. I explained this here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8512455&postcount=33) and no one has contradicted me.

I'll repeat it for you:

OK, beyond the self-evidence of his views, John Lott is an untrustworthy idiot because:

He claims he lost one of his most controversial studies: Another firearms scholar whose dog ate his data. (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2078084)

He pretended to be a woman called "Mary Rosh" on the internet in order to praise his own research and accuse his critics of fraud.Choose a weapon: Fudged data. False identities. No holds are barred in the academic duel over guns and violence (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture/articles/030210/10guns.htm)

He presented results purporting to show that "more guns" led to "less crime" when those results were the product of coding errors.
Double Barreled Double Standards (http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2003/10/we_590_01.html)

Much more on John Lott's erroneous "studies" and unethical conduct are exposed at this website (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/) and at HCI here (http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=lott).

As for your Australia figures, do you have an actual source?

Nevermind, here are real sources:

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4509.0 Crime and Safety, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)
Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime and safety survey (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/958AD34831D7BCC8CA256DEA00053A64)
Australian Crime Rates Falling (http://www.findlaw.com.au/news/default.asp?task=read&id=22869&site=CN)
Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf)
Australian crime : facts and figures 2004 (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/fig002.html)

These figures don't quite match yours, do they? I wonder why? :p
Thanks a LOTT for unearthing the dirt surrounding John Lott. I was starting to get nauseous from seeing his name way too often on these threads and everytime that I did a Google search for "gun control". :D

I would like to thank Cat-Tribe for the info regarding John Lott, so for everyone's sake will not post anymore of his research as it is ver controversial (but really what isn't in this discussion). I suppose only Lott knows the truth of the matter.

Regardless of this fact however I would like to point out that in another of your own postings you hurt your argument. Please reread "Australian crime : facts and figures 2004" and I think you will find that it shows increases in crime.

On a slightly different note another of your sites listed for crime in "Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms" knives seem at least as popular as firearms in robberies (maybe we should ban those as well; maybe all sharp objects?), suicides as a total went up while suicides involving guns stayed very similar, and firearm related homicides both before and after the ban seem similar as well.
There is a lot more to gun bans than gun related violence because guns can be used to deter other types of violence.

From the "Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime and safety survey" it is stated that, "Compared with the preceding survey (1998), small increases were found in the victimisation prevalence rate for assault (increasing from 4.3% in 1998 to 4.7% in 2002) and for total personal crimes (increasing from 4.8% in 1998 to 5.3% in 2002). Victimisation prevalence rates for household crimes remained fairly stable."
This clearly states and increase in total personal crimes.

Also the "Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4509.0 Crime and Safety, Australia" report also tells of a slight increase in crime.

Another report is found at "http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/tab01a.html" which shows an overall increase in crime since the gun ban took place.

All of the data shown here shows an overall increase in crime.

Thank you for the "real sources" as you put it.

And yes you did use "cut and paste" in your Miller case discussion. And I never claimed that any of your info was unattributed and I have tried to attribute mine as well. If you wish to argue over my info from Guns and Ammo magazine it was merely the place the info was found, the info therein was written and conducted by other parties.

By the way what Australia info are you talking about having sources for. Plese clarify so I can help.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

I would like to thank Cat-Tribe for the info regarding John Lott, so for everyone's sake will not post anymore of his research as it is ver controversial (but really what isn't in this discussion). I suppose only Lott knows the truth of the matter.

I’m glad you’ve abandoned Lott’s flawed reports as well as your ridiculous claims about the U.K.

Regardless of this fact however I would like to point out that in another of your own postings you hurt your argument. Please reread "Australian crime : facts and figures 2004" and I think you will find that it shows increases in crime.

On a slightly different note another of your sites listed for crime in "Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms" knives seem at least as popular as firearms in robberies (maybe we should ban those as well; maybe all sharp objects?), suicides as a total went up while suicides involving guns stayed very similar, and firearm related homicides both before and after the ban seem similar as well.
There is a lot more to gun bans than gun related violence because guns can be used to deter other types of violence.

From the "Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime and safety survey" it is stated that, "Compared with the preceding survey (1998), small increases were found in the victimisation prevalence rate for assault (increasing from 4.3% in 1998 to 4.7% in 2002) and for total personal crimes (increasing from 4.8% in 1998 to 5.3% in 2002). Victimisation prevalence rates for household crimes remained fairly stable."
This clearly states and increase in total personal crimes.

Also the "Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4509.0 Crime and Safety, Australia" report also tells of a slight increase in crime.

Another report is found at "http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/tab01a.html" which shows an overall increase in crime since the gun ban took place.

All of the data shown here shows an overall increase in crime.

Thank you for the "real sources" as you put it.

You are most welcome. Perhaps you can use reliable sources yourself in the future, now that you know how it is done.

And my argument was .... that your claims about a drastic crime increase in Australia due to the gun ban was false. I succeeded.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 4509.0 Crime and Safety, Australia (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/e8ae5488b598839cca25682000131612/669c5a997eaed891ca2568a900139405!OpenDocument)

Changes in victimisation over time

In 2002 the rate of household crime was estimated at 8.9%. Comparisons with 1998 and 1993 surveys show very small changes in the prevalence of victimisation for these offences.

Though small, the changes in the prevalence rates for personal crimes between the 1998 and 2002 national surveys were:
for assault, the victimisation prevalence rate increased from 4.3% in 1998 to 4.7% in 2002

for total personal crime the victimisation prevalence rate increased from 4.8% in 1998 to 5.3% in 2002.
So, in the 6 years from 2002 there were very slight increases in overall crime.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Crime and safety survey (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/958AD34831D7BCC8CA256DEA00053A64)

Compared with the preceding survey (1998), small increases were found in the victimisation prevalence rate for assault (increasing from 4.3% in 1998 to 4.7% in 2002) and for total personal crimes (increasing from 4.8% in 1998 to 5.3% in 2002). Victimisation prevalence rates for household crimes remained fairly stable.

Again, a very slight increase in overall crime over 6 years (1998 to 2002).

Australian Crime Rates Falling (http://www.findlaw.com.au/news/default.asp?task=read&id=22869&site=CN)

I noticed you didn’t comment on this one – because it hurt your theme.

By 2004, “crime rates are dropping across the country.”

Declines were recorded for almost all of the major crimes in Australia, but particularly for property offences, which accounted for 85 per cent of all major crimes in 2003.

From a rate of 137 per 100,000 of the population in 2001, robbery rates plummeted by 28% to 99 per 100,000 of the population in 2003.

A fall was also recorded in the homicide rate, which in 2003 was 1.7 per 100,000 of the population, having dropped from a peak in 1999 with a rate of 2.04 per 100,000.

Firearm-related Violence: The Impact of the Nationwide Agreement on Firearms (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/ti116.pdf)

This is a preliminary study looking at data only 2 years after the ban. Nonetheless, it contradicts your assertions.

Suicides as a total went down. Homicides as a total went down (See Table 1).

In 1997, Australia recorded 85 fewer firearm-related deaths than in 1996 (50 fewer if one excludes the victims of Port Arthur from the 1996 total).

….

The findings outlined in this paper from a preliminary analysis of data on causes of death and official crime statistics seem to indicate that, nationally, there has been a decline in firearm-related deaths in 1997, mostly due to a decline in the rate of suicides and accidents.


Australian crime : facts and figures 2004 (http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/facts/2004/fig002.html)

The rate of assault increased steadily from 623 victims per 100,000 people in 1996 to 815 per 100,000 in 2002 before declining by 2% to 798 per 100,000 in 2003.

The rate for robbery peaked at 137 per 100,000 in 2001, the highest recorded since 1996. Rates have declined since 2001 by 28% to 99 per 100,000.

In 2003 the rate of sexual assault was 92 per 100,000, which is higher than any previous year and 15% higher than in 1996.

The homicide rate was 1.91 in 1996 and was at its highest in 1999 at 2.04 per 100,000, before dropping to 1.7 in 2003.

So the homicide rate is down since 1996. Sexual assaults are up. Robbery is about the same as is assault.

So, gun restrictions in Australia did not cause a massive increase in crime.

To the contrary, crime has increased slightly overall -- for what reasons we have not explored.

But homicide is down. And from at least the 1996-1998 data, suicide and overall firearms deaths are down.

Rather decimates your argument, doesn't it?


And yes you did use "cut and paste" in your Miller case discussion. And I never claimed that any of your info was unattributed and I have tried to attribute mine as well. If you wish to argue over my info from Guns and Ammo magazine it was merely the place the info was found, the info therein was written and conducted by other parties.

I cut and pasted from the Miller case as proof of what it said. :rolleyes:

You mass cut-and-pasted almost your entire post without attribution or with misleading attribution. You hardly "tried" to attribute it accurately. Just don't do it any more, rather than make excuses and make false accusations.

By the way what Australia info are you talking about having sources for. Plese clarify so I can help.

President of the Commonwealth of Pahpahpolis

Because you appear to have a selective memory, I’ll remind you that you posted this.

This is after the Australia's first year under their gun bans:

OBSERVABLE FACT, AFTER 12 MONTHS OF DATA:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2%
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6%
Australia-wide, armed-robberies are up 44% (yes, FORTY-FOUR PERCENT)
In the state of Victoria, homicides-with-firearms are up 300%
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in homicides-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
Figures over the previous 25 years show a steady decrease in armed-robbery-with-firearms (changed dramatically in the past 12 months)
There has been a dramatic increase in breakins-and-assaults-of- the-elderly
At the time of the ban, the Prime Minister said "self-defense is not a reason for owning a firearm"
From 1910 to present, homicides in Australia had averaged about 1.8-per-100,000 or lower, a safe society by any standard.
The ban has destroyed Australia's standings in some international sport shooting competitions
The membership of the Australian Sports Shooting Association has risen to 112,000, a 200% increase, in response to the ban and as an attempt to organize against further controls, which are expected.
Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding society of guns". Their response has been to "wait longer".
-Ginny Simone with Keith Tidswell of Australia's Sporting Shooters Association

This is the information I was referring to that lacked any real source.

Moreover, this is the information that I proved was false and/or misleading.

I also proved the following information you posted was false and/or misleading:

Australia saw its violent crime rates soar after its 1996 gun control measures banned most firearms. Violent crime rates averaged 32% higher in the six years after the law was passed than they did the year before the law went into effect. Murder and manslaughter rates remained unchanged, but armed robbery rates increased 74%, aggravated assaults by 32%.

Do you really think the taxpayers should pay every time the police "fail to protect" a citizen?
They should when the laws in place remove a person's ability to defend themselves. That describes DC right there.

That is the third time today I have been psycho-analyzed as to why I support some reasonable gun control.



What is reasonable?

I dont think anyone is argueing that background checks are unreasonable. I like background checks. I just wish that it wasnt the govt in control of the database. Why not have a "black box" type of database where people(including the FBI) could call in and check if a person was disqualified to won a gun or not?

The reason I have a problem with the govt controlling this check is because has repeatedly excalated this type of information into door to door search and seizure operations. The idea is to prevent a certain group of people from owning guns, it isnt to let the govt know exactly who owns what guns. BTW: The FBI has REFUSED to delete the background check data even though they are required to by the same law that created the background check.

What other reasonable laws would you suggest??? training classes... Absolutely, I think every responsible gun owner should take some sort of class(whether the law requires it or not). I dont think the govt should be the one making up the requirements for this class though.

Waiting period and monthly purchasing limits are stupid IMHO. What purpose is served. I mean honestly, what is going to be prevented(in reality) by these laws? Not that I really care either wy, but there are many cases where law abiding people could have been aided by an immediate firearms purchase. Does this outweigh the lives saved by having waiting periods? I have no idea, but the studies I have seen say otherwise(kleck, lott)

What is reasonable?

I dont think anyone is argueing that background checks are unreasonable. I like background checks. I just wish that it wasnt the govt in control of the database. Why not have a "black box" type of database where people(including the FBI) could call in and check if a person was disqualified to won a gun or not?

The reason I have a problem with the govt controlling this check is because has repeatedly excalated this type of information into door to door search and seizure operations. The idea is to prevent a certain group of people from owning guns, it isnt to let the govt know exactly who owns what guns. BTW: The FBI has REFUSED to delete the background check data even though they are required to by the same law that created the background check.

What other reasonable laws would you suggest??? training classes... Absolutely, I think every responsible gun owner should take some sort of class(whether the law requires it or not). I dont think the govt should be the one making up the requirements for this class though.

Waiting period and monthly purchasing limits are stupid IMHO. What purpose is served. I mean honestly, what is going to be prevented(in reality) by these laws? Not that I really care either wy, but there are many cases where law abiding people could have been aided by an immediate firearms purchase. Does this outweigh the lives saved by having waiting periods? I have no idea, but the studies I have seen say otherwise(kleck, lott)

So you would trust a corporation with the background check information? Including all the criminal records, terror watch lists, etc?
And the FBI should trust this corporation?

And why shouldn't the government know who has bought what gun? I've never understood any reason for that beyond sheer paranoia.

The issue of what gun controls and regulations would be optimal is complex. I don't claim to have an answer.

But the gun lobby and NRA's opposition to any control or regulation of firearms whatsoever keeps most ideas from even being discussed.

So you would trust a corporation with the background check information? Including all the criminal records, terror watch lists, etc?
And the FBI should trust this corporation?

And why shouldn't the government know who has bought what gun? I've never understood any reason for that beyond sheer paranoia.

The issue of what gun controls and regulations would be optimal is complex. I don't claim to have an answer.

But the gun lobby and NRA's opposition to any control or regulation of firearms whatsoever keeps most ideas from even being discussed.

I would trust a private sorporation to maintain a black box database wherein the govt(or private gun shops) could enter a persons name, SS#, DOB ect and receive a yes or no confir. The company is paid solely on number of checks, not on whether a yes or no is returned.

I am wary of the govt having DIRECT access to this info because govt(states) have repeatedly used this info to exceed the authority they claimed when they first justifies having access to this info.

Moreover, one of the principle reasons of gun ownership in the USA is so that it is another check and balance(we have many and this is by far the last resort) against govt tyrany. It partially defeats the purpose if a potentially tyranical govt/administration already has accesses to all the info concerning the groups/people that might potentially oppose it.

Why does it bother you that a prvate company might have access to records concerning felony convictions?? This is info in the public record after all. What exactly would/could a private corporation do with this info as opposed to what the govt might do with it(granted, in extreme cases but the BATF is redefining the word extreme). How would the BATF behave if we did not have a relatively benevolent govt?

Why does it bother you that a prvate company might have access to records concerning felony convictions?? This is info in the public record after all. What exactly would/could a private corporation do with this info as opposed to what the govt might do with it(granted, in extreme cases but the BATF is redefining the word extreme). How would the BATF behave if we did not have a relatively benevolent govt?

Ok this is offtopic.. but I just had to get it off my chest.
why is it that the majority of proponents or the partiot act,partiot act II, closed tribunals, etc, are the same ones that are worried that the govt will abuse crime data.
1. Police are a government entity and are charged with enforcing the laws of the government. All criminal acitivities are recorded by law enforcement and records for these are maintained for good reasons by those government sponsored law enforcement agencies. However, if you want to put all of the data in one place, then we cant trust the government to manage that.
Whenever it comes to gun and any sort of regulation, the government just isnt trustworthy enough to manage and keep or monitor usage of such.

2. when it comes to homelans security, those same people are willing to give up all of thier rights citing the fact that since they are model citizens, so they have nothing to worry about from such government intervention. what kind of logic is that? Dont you think that the government and government agencies take advantage of that to thier benefit at times without regard to your rights.
Why give up your rights for that and not the other?

you want the government to remove all your reasonable expectations of privacy when it comes to solving crime or terrorism, but you dont want them to have a list of people who shouldnt, for one reason or another, to not be abl e to own a gun?

Being somewhat of a paranoid liberal bastard.. I can understand the whole lack of trust for the government and its questionnable practices. But can you honestly say that you trust a corporation more? Corporations regularly screw over people in the interest of money.. corporation do not answer to people, they only answer to stockholders. if such a company existed whos purpose it was to manage a black-box.. they would essentially be a government agency anyway since thier primary purpose would be to monitor a government investment. either that or a government contractor.. and we all know how that works out.. (i still havent figured out how to identify a government purchased toilet seat at $250 as opposed to one you could get for $20 at your local hardware store.)

S-

at the very least, the government answers to the taxpayer who can work to change things that dont work in the government.

So you would trust a corporation with the background check information? Including all the criminal records, terror watch lists, etc?
And the FBI should trust this corporation?

And why shouldn't the government know who has bought what gun? I've never understood any reason for that beyond sheer paranoia.

The issue of what gun controls and regulations would be optimal is complex. I don't claim to have an answer.

But the gun lobby and NRA's opposition to any control or regulation of firearms whatsoever keeps most ideas from even being discussed.

Between the Gov't and a Corp., I scared to say I'ld trust the gov't (barely) more.

Because every time a gov't has concocted a scheme (ussually registration) to identify ownership, it has led to outright bans. Yes this includes locations in America.

But you support the gun banners and oppose gun rights individuals and organizations in every arguement but you don't have an idea/answer as to what you believe is right? Now you're being disingenous. You have stated previously that you don't believe in private ownership.

That's like saying HCI and Diane Fienstien only want "reasonable" gun control. ie a disarmed citizenry.

Ok this is offtopic.. but I just had to get it off my chest.
why is it that the majority of proponents or the partiot act,partiot act II, closed tribunals, etc, are the same ones that are worried that the govt will abuse crime data.
1. Police are a government entity and are charged with enforcing the laws of the government. All criminal acitivities are recorded by law enforcement and records for these are maintained for good reasons by those government sponsored law enforcement agencies. However, if you want to put all of the data in one place, then we cant trust the government to manage that.
Whenever it comes to gun and any sort of regulation, the government just isnt trustworthy enough to manage and keep or monitor usage of such.

2. when it comes to homelans security, those same people are willing to give up all of thier rights citing the fact that since they are model citizens, so they have nothing to worry about from such government intervention. what kind of logic is that? Dont you think that the government and government agencies take advantage of that to thier benefit at times without regard to your rights.
Why give up your rights for that and not the other?

you want the government to remove all your reasonable expectations of privacy when it comes to solving crime or terrorism, but you dont want them to have a list of people who shouldnt, for one reason or another, to not be abl e to own a gun?

Being somewhat of a paranoid liberal bastard.. I can understand the whole lack of trust for the government and its questionnable practices. But can you honestly say that you trust a corporation more? Corporations regularly screw over people in the interest of money.. corporation do not answer to people, they only answer to stockholders. if such a company existed whos purpose it was to manage a black-box.. they would essentially be a government agency anyway since thier primary purpose would be to monitor a government investment. either that or a government contractor.. and we all know how that works out.. (i still havent figured out how to identify a government purchased toilet seat at $250 as opposed to one you could get for $20 at your local hardware store.)

S-

at the very least, the government answers to the taxpayer who can work to change things that dont work in the government.

Can you name some people or are you just spouting '"majority" to make yourself heard?

1. But the police are not held liable for their jobs either. Why should they keep records on the ownership of LAC's firearm ownership? Can you cite any places where this has improved thier conviction rate? Howabout the much touted "ballistic fingerprinting" which was supposed to save the world and is now being dropped as useless?

2. Once again, who are these people? I don't like the Patriot Act or heavy handed gun banning.

If you are so paranoid about the Gov't, do you really want the Gov't (or Corp) keeping more records of you?

Ok this is offtopic.. but I just had to get it off my chest.
why is it that the majority of proponents or the partiot act,partiot act II, closed tribunals, etc, are the same ones that are worried that the govt will abuse crime data.

How do you know anything about my views regarding the patriot acts closed tribunals ects?

It isnt abuse of crime data that I am worries about, it is govt knowledge of gun owners that bothers me. Gun owners are not criminals, why should the govt keep track of their purchasing habits?


1. Police are a government entity and are charged with enforcing the laws of the government. All criminal acitivities are recorded by law enforcement and records for these are maintained for good reasons by those government sponsored law enforcement agencies. However, if you want to put all of the data in one place, then we cant trust the government to manage that.

The govt can keep track of that all it wants, it is the instant background check that is of issue, not who committed what crime.


Whenever it comes to gun and any sort of regulation, the government just isnt trustworthy enough to manage and keep or monitor usage of such.

Well, a benevolent govt would be trustworthy enough. However, one of the purposes of civillian gun ownership is to provide a check against a tyrannical govt. I wouldnt want a tyrannical govt to know who possesed what guns.


2. when it comes to homelans security, those same people are willing to give up all of thier rights citing the fact that since they are model citizens, so they have nothing to worry about from such government intervention. what kind of logic is that? Dont you think that the government and government agencies take advantage of that to thier benefit at times without regard to your rights.
Why give up your rights for that and not the other?


What are you talking about? We are discussing gun regulation and you start making up things about people you dont even know. And as far as homeland security goes, we already lost most of those rights. We lost them during the 80s with the war on drugs. I would like them back, but no one seems to care enough.


you want the government to remove all your reasonable expectations of privacy when it comes to solving crime or terrorism, but you dont want them to have a list of people who shouldnt, for one reason or another, to not be abl e to own a gun?

Do you not undersstand that we had already effectively lost most of those rights during the 80s


Being somewhat of a paranoid liberal bastard.. I can understand the whole lack of trust for the government and its questionnable practices. But can you honestly say that you trust a corporation more? Corporations regularly screw over people in the interest of money.. corporation do not answer to people, they only answer to stockholders. if such a company existed whos purpose it was to manage a black-box.. they would essentially be a government agency anyway since thier primary purpose would be to monitor a government investment. either that or a government contractor.. and we all know how that works out.. (i still havent figured out how to identify a government purchased toilet seat at $250 as opposed to one you could get for $20 at your local hardware store.)



Of course I "trust" a corporation more. Corporation can be taken to court fairly easily. Govts are not accountable at all. Maybe a politician or two might lose an election put all the unelected people are there and it is very difficult to 1) pin the blame on a specific person or agency 2) hold them accountable even if you can find the responsible party



at the very least, the government answers to the taxpayer who can work to change things that dont work in the government.

Thats humour right? do you think all the bureaucrats are replaced whenever there is an election? You cant even fire these people unless they screw up big time.

The thing that Scares me Most is not what the gov., it scares me lots but not the most, is the growing lack of diffrence between a police force and a military force. the diffrence is shrinking.... :( :( :( :( :( :(

But you support the gun banners and oppose gun rights individuals and organizations in every arguement but you don't have an idea/answer as to what you believe is right? Now you're being disingenous. You have stated previously that you don't believe in private ownership.

Where have I said that I don't believe in private ownership of firearms?

I've said it is not protected by the Second Amendment. I have argued it is not a fundamental right similar to freedom of speech, religion, etc.

I have opposed specious Second Amendment arguments and bad gun lobby statistics.

My personal opinions are mixed. I definitely lean towards gun control. I do not believe all the rhetoric about guns being the key to freedom, safer than knives, or the panacea for crime. On the other hand, I know guns can and are used properly for self defense and other legitimate purposes.

Do I have a firm idea of where I would draw the line? No.

Does that make me any less outraged at NRA propaganda and excesses? No.

That's like saying HCI and Diane Fienstien only want "reasonable" gun control. ie a disarmed citizenry.

That is exactly the type of hysterical exaggeration that I am talking about. Even HCI doesn't seek the ban of all guns.

I have a question CT. If the 2nd refers to states' rights and not individual rights, why is it that it has never been used successfully in defense of state militia rights and only been used at all once or twice?

I have a question CT. If the 2nd refers to states' rights and not individual rights, why is it that it has never been used successfully in defense of state militia rights and only been used at all once or twice?

What?

I'm afraid I do not understand your question. Clarify and I will try to answer.

Supposedly the 2nd is supposed to affirm states' rights yes? At least according to your argument. That is in fact on what you base your contention that the 2nd does not refer to individual rights. The problem with your theory is that the judgements of the lower courts in the 20th century which support your case fly in the face of about 180 years of US Supreme Court decisions on the powers of the states concerning the militia. The entire argument can be found here. (http://guncite.com/journals/heath.html) It has never been used successfully by the states except briefly in Kneedler v. Lane

Surprisingly, the Court had little precedent on which to rely in ruling on the constitutionality of conscription. The leading case on the subject appeared to be the hoary Kneedler v. Lane,[45] an 1863 Pennsylvania decision upholding the constitutionality of the draft. On first consideration, the Pennsylvania high court ruled against the constitutionality of the draft, and on November 9th, 1863 issued an injunction against it.[46] A passage in one of two concurring opinions presented a "states' right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. Agreeing with the court majority that the Civil War draft was unconstitutional, Justice Thompson claimed that conscription by the national government would threaten the sovereignty of the states, and make every citizen vulnerable to being subjected to military law. He contended that it violated the Second Amendment because it(p.55) allowed Congress to eliminate the militia, "by absorbing the militia into the army . . . calling them out individually without requisition on the states . . . ."[47] Justice Thompson was not explicit as to whether he believed the drafted militiamen, or the state governments, or both, had standing under the Second Amendment. Other than that ambiguity, it is clear he invoked the amendment as a protection of state militia. In any event, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania quickly reversed itself, and on January 16th, 1864, lifted its injunction and declared the draft constitutional.[48] Fifty-four years later the U.S. Supreme Court definitively upheld the constitutionality of conscription in The Selective Draft Law Cases. However, at the time of the original Kneedler injunction there was no governing jurisprudence on conscription, so on the basis of two paragraphs in a concurrence to an overruled decision one could fairly argue that the "states' right" model was legally viable for nine weeks in the winter of 1863-64.

Justice Thompson's short-lived contention about the Second Amendment proves one thing: the "states' right" interpretation has not merely been overlooked in militia jurisprudence, it has been rejected. Jurists confronting questions of federalism and the militia have undoubtedly been conscious of the amendment, but have rarely seen fit to mention it even in passing, and have never detailed how the states may wield it against federal interference. So, if the only time it can be said to have actually made it into the Supreme Court it was both ultimately rejected as a defense and it was rather unclear if it was meant to protect only the states, then if the states' rights interpretation was the correct interpretation than that would make the 2nd pretty much useless. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the framers of the constitution wouldn't have put in the 2nd amendment just for kicks. It has to be there to serve some sort of purpose. The pretty much leaves an individual rights view.

Can you name some people or are you just spouting '"majority" to make yourself heard?

1. But the police are not held liable for their jobs either. Why should they keep records on the ownership of LAC's firearm ownership? Can you cite any places where this has improved thier conviction rate? Howabout the much touted "ballistic fingerprinting" which was supposed to save the world and is now being dropped as useless?

2. Once again, who are these people? I don't like the Patriot Act or heavy handed gun banning.

If you are so paranoid about the Gov't, do you really want the Gov't (or Corp) keeping more records of you?

i had a nice long answer for you.. but i lost it by hitting a key on my keyboard..
let me sum up
police are monitored and scrutinized far more than any corporation.
they are regularly sued in court over actions that they take. Police follow a very strict set of guidelines and very rarely is thier discretion a valid defense in court. Police are not allowed to interpret the law.. they are only allowed to enforce it.

the majority of people i refer to are the vocal minions of sheep who complain at any mere mention of gun legislation whether its good or bad. at the same time, they tirn around and say we are willing to give up our rights becuase we are scared that well have terrorists running throuhg the streets here every wednesday if we dont allow the government to clandestinly spy on its own citizens without the statute of dude process..

as for ballistic fingerprinting.. last time i checked... the practice was still in use as it has been for decades. It may not be the end all be all of evidence... but its findings regularly stand up in court.

corp or govt.. you think that a corporate entity whos sole purpose is to guard a government entity/investment will be any more suseptible to prosecution.. you are kidding yourself. the only thing thats having a corporation control it.. beyond only representing stockholders, is a move to a fascistic form of government.. which is a government whos controls lie in corporations.

I dont want the government to keep records of me.. I look at gun ownership as something that should be a privelage thats should be offered to those who meet certain qualifications. I want the government to keep track of fool swho stockpile weapons wiht a plan to overthrow the coty, the government, my neighborhood, or just go n a killing spree. I also wan tht egovernment to do its best.. even though it may not be possible to stop every incidence.. to prevent people who obviously should not have gun from attaining them. felons, nutcases, etc.

If i want to stay off that list, its as easy as not purchasing a gun..
But jus tin case you wanted to know.. I do own a gun.. I dont know why.. I dont fear for my life constantly..
and if i want to shoot at paper targets, the local range ive gone too will rent me a gun for almost nothing to practice with.

Supposedly the 2nd is supposed to affirm states' rights yes? At least according to your argument. That is in fact on what you base your contention that the 2nd does not refer to individual rights. The problem with your theory is that the judgements of the lower courts in the 20th century which support your case fly in the face of about 180 years of US Supreme Court decisions on the powers of the states concerning the militia. The entire argument can be found here. (http://guncite.com/journals/heath.html) It has never been used successfully by the states except briefly in Kneedler v. Lane

So, if the only time it can be said to have actually made it into the Supreme Court it was both ultimately rejected as a defense and it was rather unclear if it was meant to protect only the states, then if the states' rights interpretation was the correct interpretation than that would make the 2nd pretty much useless. I don't know about you, but I'm pretty sure that the framers of the constitution wouldn't have put in the 2nd amendment just for kicks. It has to be there to serve some sort of purpose. The pretty much leaves an individual rights view.

This is a false dichotomy. And you appear to have done a fairly poor job of reading what was rather faulty scholarship to begin with.

The Supreme Court has held in the cases referenced that conscription does not violate the Second Amendment. Would you care to explain how those decisions were wrong?

The fact that one concurring opinion by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice court in 1863 once briefly cited the Second Amendment among several reasons why federal conscription might entrench state's rights actually supports a collective rights theory.

Mr. Heath's article is interesting but it goes astray and is speculative in many places. Although the article describes him as "a private scholar," he was an undergraduate history major at the time the article was published.

The fact that one concurring opinion by a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice court in 1863 once briefly cited the Second Amendment among several reasons why federal conscription might entrench state's rights actually supports a collective rights theory.
Actually, it doesn't differentiate between states' rights and the rights of the militia itself. That decision was also reversed by the same court about 9 weeks later. So your theory is viable for about 2 months in the winter of '63-4.

Actually, it doesn't differentiate between states' rights and the rights of the militia itself. That decision was also reversed by the same court about 9 weeks later. So your theory is viable for about 2 months in the winter of '63-4.


:headbang:

I know it was reversed -- and it was never the decision of the court to begin with. It was merely part of a concurring opinion.

But you and Mr. Hale seem to think their is some great significance in that one overturned concurrence. Why?

A 64-year-old man will not be charged in the fatal shooting of a man who allegedly tried to rob him at a service station, the prosecutor who reviewed the case says.

Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Karen Loebel said Wednesday that, based on the evidence, she would not be able to disprove a claim that the man from Arkansas was acting in self-defense.

Police spokeswoman Anne Schwartz has said that Kendall L. Moss, 20, was among a group of cousins who demanded that the man turn over his van and money.

The man refused, Schwartz said, and Moss and his cousins began punching him. The boys then took the man’s walking cane and beat him with that, she said.

Schwartz has said that, at that point, the man took out a gun and shot Moss.

Full story: Our Hero shot the larcenous little fuck right in the head with a .44 bullet.

[has to wait for 10 minutes for the cheering to subside]

It’s a good day for gun owners when a goblin gets whacked, and it’s especially good when an otherwise-helpless man uses a gun to protect himself against the feral little shits who think they can do anything the hell they want, and get away with it.

:headbang:

I know it was reversed -- and it was never the decision of the court to begin with. It was merely part of a concurring opinion.

But you and Mr. Hale seem to think their is some great significance in that one overturned concurrence. Why?
It was really the only case that the state has ever been referenced as having a right under the 2nd amendment prior to the 20th century.

Cat-Tribe, I'm going to ask it, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but...

(two parter here...)
What Restrictions do you consider REASONABLE, and WHAT restrictions do you consider UNREASONABLE?

You've said you support reasonable gun control several times, can you articulate that, give us an example of an American city with what you consider reasonable gun-laws.

Then, can you give us an example of Unreasonable gun-laws?

Think of this as practice for your future seat (ghod help us) on the Supreme Court, or on a Federal Appeals court.

Imagine this situation: You're one of four judges on the Supreme Court, (that's not enough for a majority), who want to green-light a gun-law that the other five are slavering to take down. The only halfway-reasonable (on this issue) in that five, is a slavering old bastard who managed to sneak into the position before coming out as a pro-gun/anti-big-government Bork with Libertarian Tendencies who really just refuses to agree with the line of thinking underpinning Miller. This old turd thinks the government is too big, and that the Patriot Act went too far, won't look at obscenity cases but just reflexively goes "First Amendment, Next Case!!".

Douglas with a gun and an attitude, if you will.

That's the Reasonable guy. The other four are hardcore Right-Wing nightmares right out of a Michael Moore movie.

Now, imagine you want to convince this old bastard that (Insert Reasonable Gun Control Measure you would, in fact, like to see passed) is a good idea, and it doesn't grant undue powers to the Federal Government.


That's how I would like to see you answer the first part.

Now, same cast of characters, but a gun-law you would consider unreasonable, only turn the "Pivot man" around-he's a hardcore statist, thinks the sun rises and sets only over D.C., and that the civilians out there are irresponsible, and every gun-owner is a potential terrorist.

His other four colleagues on the other side are of like mind-but you only have to 'turn' one to get a majority, right?
How would you do this?

It's not as though the court's decisions up to this point in time have had any real effect on reducing the number of guns in the US. It's only been going up by leaps and bounds - nearly 100 million more in the past 10 years while the overall violent crime and murder rate went down.

I carry my pistol every day, and it's completely legal. So a lot of this discussion is moot.

It was really the only case that the state has ever been referenced as having a right under the 2nd amendment prior to the 20th century.

So? Such a case would only be possible if the federal government violated a state's Second Amendment right.

You are arguing in a circle here. You wish to claim that the Second Amendment must protect an individual right because it does not protect a collective or state right. But you have no evidence that it does not protect a collective or state right -- you have merely the absence of a holding that the federal government has ever violated such a right. There is no there there.

Cat, I've been wondering...

So many people in the Democratic Party are paranoid that Bush will stack SCOTUS in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.

If this is truly possible, then is it also possible that the same judges could declare that the Second Amendment *is* an individual right?

It seems to be Bush's opinion (you can see the same opinion offered by the Justice Department). So does stacking the judges work? Or is this just a smoke screen of paranoia? Or is this along the lines that judicial activism is a sword that cuts both ways?

Cat-Tribe, I'm going to ask it, and you don't have to answer if you don't want to, but...

(two parter here...)
What Restrictions do you consider REASONABLE, and WHAT restrictions do you consider UNREASONABLE?

You've said you support reasonable gun control several times, can you articulate that, give us an example of an American city with what you consider reasonable gun-laws.

Then, can you give us an example of Unreasonable gun-laws?

Think of this as practice for your future seat (ghod help us) on the Supreme Court, or on a Federal Appeals court.

Imagine this situation: You're one of four judges on the Supreme Court, (that's not enough for a majority), who want to green-light a gun-law that the other five are slavering to take down. The only halfway-reasonable (on this issue) in that five, is a slavering old bastard who managed to sneak into the position before coming out as a pro-gun/anti-big-government Bork with Libertarian Tendencies who really just refuses to agree with the line of thinking underpinning Miller. This old turd thinks the government is too big, and that the Patriot Act went too far, won't look at obscenity cases but just reflexively goes "First Amendment, Next Case!!".

Douglas with a gun and an attitude, if you will.

That's the Reasonable guy. The other four are hardcore Right-Wing nightmares right out of a Michael Moore movie.

Now, imagine you want to convince this old bastard that (Insert Reasonable Gun Control Measure you would, in fact, like to see passed) is a good idea, and it doesn't grant undue powers to the Federal Government.


That's how I would like to see you answer the first part.

Now, same cast of characters, but a gun-law you would consider unreasonable, only turn the "Pivot man" around-he's a hardcore statist, thinks the sun rises and sets only over D.C., and that the civilians out there are irresponsible, and every gun-owner is a potential terrorist.

His other four colleagues on the other side are of like mind-but you only have to 'turn' one to get a majority, right?
How would you do this?

I'll think about it. Although my primary answer is that there is no legal ground for the court to rule a gun law is "unreasonable" or unconstitutional. As their is no right to firearms under the Constitution, gun control on the federal level is a matter for the legislature.

In the meantime, would you care to give your answer?

And you might note that Judge Bork has clearly stated his position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess firearms.

Cat, I've been wondering...

So many people in the Democratic Party are paranoid that Bush will stack SCOTUS in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.

If this is truly possible, then is it also possible that the same judges could declare that the Second Amendment *is* an individual right?

It seems to be Bush's opinion (you can see the same opinion offered by the Justice Department). So does stacking the judges work? Or is this just a smoke screen of paranoia? Or is this along the lines that judicial activism is a sword that cuts both ways?

You know, WL, if CT's right in his position from a purely legal standpoint, I'm not sure you would want a court stacked that way. (one of the reasons I shut up on this subject tuesday was because I'm not as sure of things as I was then. I had to do some research...)
Consider: if the Supreme Court places the 2nd Amendment up as an Individual Right, what happens when we release a Felon whom has served his (second) time? What about the rights of those who aren't necessarily all there? We let some damned irresponsible people say what they like (neo-nazis, the KKK, Michael Moore, the Baldwins...), do we drop fifty years of controls all-at-once because the right to bear arms is an Individual Right and not subject to State Control?
On an Idealistic level, I'm in favour of that-but on a pragmatic level, I see some problems with it totally unrelated to the Government, per-se, especially with State constitutions.

So? Such a case would only be possible if the federal government violated a state's Second Amendment right.

You are arguing in a circle here. You wish to claim that the Second Amendment must protect an individual right because it does not protect a collective or state right. But you have no evidence that it does not protect a collective or state right -- you have merely the absence of a holding that the federal government has ever violated such a right. There is no there there.
Not really, given the simple fact that nowhere in the constitution and specifically nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say the states have rights. The only entity delegated rights is the term 'the people'. Which is entirely keeping in line with what the U.S. constitution was designed to do. It was designed to enumerate ther rights of the people and limit the powers of primarily the federal government and to a lesser extent the states' government. Oddly enough, this almost seems to be the exact opposite goal of the EU constitution

Cat, I've been wondering...

So many people in the Democratic Party are paranoid that Bush will stack SCOTUS in order to overturn Roe v. Wade.

If this is truly possible, then is it also possible that the same judges could declare that the Second Amendment *is* an individual right?

It seems to be Bush's opinion (you can see the same opinion offered by the Justice Department). So does stacking the judges work? Or is this just a smoke screen of paranoia? Or is this along the lines that judicial activism is a sword that cuts both ways?

You raise a good point.

Stacking the court is difficult to do for several reasons. Not the least of which is that judges tend to be independent and not always rule as expected.

Roe is considered a closer case. Obviously very controversial, with several judges on the court that currently disagree with Roe altogether. In a crucial test of Roe, however, a majority reaffirmed its principles in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 US 833 (1992) -- in part based on stare decisis.

Judicial activism is a sword that cuts both ways. Many commentators suggest that judicial activism is a label placed on decisions that one doesn't like.

The Supreme Court could change course and hold the Second Amendment protects an individual right. It is unlikely to do so. None of the current Justices have expressed a belief that this should be addressed. The caselaw predates Roe and is remarkably uniform. Usually the Supreme Court settles issues that are disputed in the US Courts of Appeal -- here the circuits agree.

Out of respect for precedent and stability in the law -- even a Justice that individually believed the Second Amendment protected an individual right would likely hesitate to reverse course. Particularly as this is mostly a state issue and the state's have their own constitutional provisions.

Consider: if the Supreme Court places the 2nd Amendment up as an Individual Right, what happens when we release a Felon whom has served his (second) time?
Actually the courts are much much clearer on the matter of a felon being covered by the 2nd amendment. By commiting a felony, they have effectively betrayed the trust of the people. As such they can have certain rights denied to them. Particularly the right to vote, etc... I think there's a way to get things like voting rights and stuff back by petitioning somebody. I'm not sure though.

It's not as though the court's decisions up to this point in time have had any real effect on reducing the number of guns in the US. It's only been going up by leaps and bounds - nearly 100 million more in the past 10 years while the overall violent crime and murder rate went down.

I carry my pistol every day, and it's completely legal. So a lot of this discussion is moot.

Agreed.

I don't think the Second Amendment is relevant to gun ownership or gun control.

I think the actual merits of the issue are more important and more difficult.

Actually the courts are much much clearer on the matter of a felon being covered by the 2nd amendment. By commiting a felony, they have effectively betrayed the trust of the people. As such they can have certain rights denied to them. Particularly the right to vote, etc... I think there's a way to get things like voting rights and stuff back by petitioning somebody. I'm not sure though.

You continue to err in thinking this is a basis for the court's decisions. It isn't.

The courts haven't said "well, you are a felon, so you don't have an right covered by the Second Amendment."

They have consistently and repeatedly said, "There is no individual right protected by the Second Amendment."

Judges write opinions for a reason. To explain what they are doing.

Not really, given the simple fact that nowhere in the constitution and specifically nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say the states have rights. The only entity delegated rights is the term 'the people'. Which is entirely keeping in line with what the U.S. constitution was designed to do. It was designed to enumerate ther rights of the people and limit the powers of primarily the federal government and to a lesser extent the states' government. Oddly enough, this almost seems to be the exact opposite goal of the EU constitution

Now you are switching arguments.

Regardless, the argument is specious. The original Consitution was not "designed to enumerate ther rights of the people and limit the powers of primarily the federal government and to a lesser extent the states' government." It set forth the powers and limitations of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to enumerate some rights. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at all until the passage of the 14th Amendment.

We've been through this before ...

And, of the top of my head ...

Article IV

Section 1.


Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

Section 3.

New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 4.

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

and the Tenth Amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Oh, and if they meant it as a state right, why exactly did this come up on September 9th, 1789?



the 24th of August, on "Articles to be proposed to the legislatures of the several states as amendments to the constitution of the United States;" and,

On motion to amend article the third, to read as follows: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and petition to the government for the redress of grievances:"

It passed in the affirmative.

On motion to strike out the fourth article:

It passed in the affirmative.

On motion to amend article the fifth, by inserting these words, 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:'

It passed in the negative.

On motion to strike out of this article, line the second, these words, 'the best,' and insert in lieu thereof 'necessary to the:'

It passed in the affirmative.

On motion, on article the fifth, to strike out the word 'fifth,' after 'article the,' and insert 'fourth,' and to amend the article to read as follows: 'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

It passed in the affirmative.

They specifically struck down the words 'for the common defence' which would unambiguosly make the right one in the collective. Why would they do that, if such was what it was meant to apply to?

Whoops source: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj001133))

If that doesn't work go here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsjlink.html and find the Sept. 9th entry.

that entire article sums down to an argument that we have heard time and time again:

if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns


well, i have a novel approach:

why not stop making the damn things?

seriously, if we stopped making them completely, and publicly bought and destroyed the oned already in existance, nobody would have guns, criminal or innocent alike.

then you can block imports, and all you have to worry about is smuggling, and we already have a system in place to deter drug smuggling, so why don't we beef that up and modify it slightly to include dangerous firearms?

i can hear you already: "but the second amendment! the second amendment!"

1) i doubt any of you NRA idiots even know the whole thing. no, it is not "the right to bear arms" google "constitutional amendments" and read the entire thing.

2) while you're at it, go read the twenty first amendment. i'm serious, go read it before you move on to the next bit.


see? the amendments are not set in stone. why do you think they're called 'amendments'? they're there to be changed, modified, and updated as the times move onwards.


cute... but how are you going to convince or stop other countries from having guns? and from keeping them out of here if they refuse..... and whats to keep them from being the only country with guns and well... wrold domination anyone?

You know, WL, if CT's right in his position from a purely legal standpoint, I'm not sure you would want a court stacked that way. (one of the reasons I shut up on this subject tuesday was because I'm not as sure of things as I was then. I had to do some research...)
Consider: if the Supreme Court places the 2nd Amendment up as an Individual Right, what happens when we release a Felon whom has served his (second) time? What about the rights of those who aren't necessarily all there? We let some damned irresponsible people say what they like (neo-nazis, the KKK, Michael Moore, the Baldwins...), do we drop fifty years of controls all-at-once because the right to bear arms is an Individual Right and not subject to State Control?
On an Idealistic level, I'm in favour of that-but on a pragmatic level, I see some problems with it totally unrelated to the Government, per-se, especially with State constitutions.

Cadillac-Gage, That comment is definatley worthy of respect.. from both sides. I know that many gun advocates fear any sort of legislation for fear of a slippery slope, its good to see you break the mold and admit that even though you dont agree with the lengths to which gun legislation is pushed, some of it is well thought out and should remain. Despite our differences, I have a great amount of respect for those who can look clearly at an issue and make an assessment thats not based on a party line, but in the best interest of everyone.

Now you are switching arguments.

Regardless, the argument is specious. The original Consitution was not "designed to enumerate ther rights of the people and limit the powers of primarily the federal government and to a lesser extent the states' government." It set forth the powers and limitations of the federal government. The Bill of Rights was added to enumerate some rights. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the states at all until the passage of the 14th Amendment.

We've been through this before ...

and the Tenth Amendment:
Powers and rights are completely different things.

Power

A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude.

The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.


Right

That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

A just or legal claim.

As stated before, nowhere are rights bestowed upon the states.

Your thinking is off-track in many respects. Here are a few off the top of my head:

1) The federal statute cannot change the meaning of the Second Amendment. The Constitution is supreme.

2) A federal statute cannot change the definition of the state militias protected by the Second Amendment.

3) Changes in what is considered a militia do not change the logic of Miller.


All right I've been busy so forgive me for bringing this up out of context, but you are about to be turned into roadkill.

Adressing point 1: The statute does not change the meaning of the second ammendment, what it does is it gives us a definition of militia to use when interpreting the constitution. The definition provided by the statute overwhelmingly supports the group ownership viewpoint, but the group allowed to own guns is every individual between the ages of 16 and 45, 64 for prior service. Your communal rights argument is fully supported, but the community allowed to own guns is a group of individuals of a certain age range, therefore the government position is indirectly supporting the individual ownership theory, either the law is the law or it isn't, if it isn't then the Miller decision and the anti-gun laws are moot because if one law is invalid then they are all invalid.

Adressing point 2: The ammendment never says state militia, the exact wording you are so happy to constantly quote is "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." The state referenced is the nation-state of America, not the states that make up that nation. This interpretation comes from the Cornell university law department, it is not my interpretation but in fact that of constitutional scholars. It seems you are losing ground here, boy.

Adressing point 3: Don't they? The courts logic was based on the assumption that the shotgun would not be useful to a person defending the nation, however a militia in new york city would not have as much room to maneuver a firearm in the close quarters of many of the cities areas as a national guard member in the open field would. Since the definition of militia is all able bodied individuals between 16 and 45 then the weapon would be useful to a militia formed in an urban setting, the only requirement for the gun to be legal was that it had to have, again from Cornell universities archives, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,", a militia in an urban setting would have its efficiency increased by the greater maneuverability of a sawed off shotgun as compared to a full length shotgun or a rifle. Maneuverability is just about the only way to survive on a modern battlefield, so a militia in a heavily wooded area would also benefit from the reduced length because there would be less chance of the gun getting tangled in something and would therefore benefit almost as much as an urban militia from a shortened shotgun.

All of your points have been addressed, I would love to see the specious arguments that you come up with to defeat my reasoning.

Heh, this is funny.

http://www.ohioccw.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3018

Last week, Ohioans For Concealed Carry began receiving reports of "no-guns" signs being posted in United Dairy Farmers (UDF) stores in Ohio. An investigation by Business Education Coordinator Joe Eaton discovered the Ohio-based chain had just ordered signs to be posted in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana stores.

Although it didn't take long for OFCC supporters to begin responding to the discriminatory signs, OFCC has learned that criminals in Ohio appear to have responded even more rapidly

Cincinnati Crime Stoppers is offering a reward for tips leading to the arrest of a man wanted for aggravated robbery of a UDF store in Cincinnati on March 28.

WANTED FOR AGGRAVATED ROBBERY
Robbery

On 03-28-05 at 4:06 am the suspect entered UDF at 3325 Clifton Av displaying a gun and a note. The suspect wore a black mask, rose colored sunglasses, and black gloves.

WBNS-10TV.com is reporting that police are on the hunt for the man they believe robbed three UDF stores within a couple hours last Friday morning, April 1.

From the story:

Police say the suspect entered the store, implied he had a weapon in a note he passed to the cashier.

The suspect robbed the UDF on West Broad Street at 3:40 a.m., one on High Street at 6:09 a.m. and then finally, one on Norton Road at 8:30 a.m.

No one was injured in the robberies and police are currently reviewing surveillance video. They can say they believe the robberies are the work of one man.

Detective Edward Dahlman of the Columbus Police Robbery Squad says, "We believe they are because of the basic description of the suspect and his method of operation. He came in and approached the teller and then passed a note. And after the robbery demand note was passed, then obviously he wanted her to hurry up and he told her to hurry up."

Customers say they saw the suspect flee on foot. Police only have a vague description of the suspect.

According to a Columbus police report discovered by an alert OFCC supporter, a fifth Columbus UDF store was robbed just hours later. From the report, Case # 050271963:

Location: 1188 N. Wilson Rd.
City: Columbus
Zone: 3
Precinct: 15
District: 150
Occurred:4/3/2005 11:33:00 PM
Reported by: Officer Townsley, jr
Badge: 1531

Report Narrative:

REPORTING PERSON STATES THAT AT LISTED TIME, SUSPECT CAME INTO THE STORE AND WENT INTO THE RESTROOM. AFTER A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, SUSPECT CAME OUT OF THE RESTROON, LEANED OVER THE COUNTER TOWARDS THE VICTIM AND TOLD HER TO "GIVE HIM THE MONEY IN THE DRAWER." VICTIM STATES THAT SHE THOUGHT THE SUSPECT WAS KIDDING. SUSPECT THEN LEANED A LITTLE FARTHER OVER THE COUNTER, WITH HIS HANDS UNDER HIS COAT THE ENTIRE, TIME AND TOLD THE VICTIM TO "GIVE ME THE F***ING MONEY IN THE DRAWER, OR I`LL TAKE THIS GUN OUT AND F***ING SHOOT YOU." VICTIM STATES THAT SHE THEN GAVE HIM THE MONEY AND THE SUSPECT LEFT THE STORE.

Even as these robberies were being committed, UDF Director of Security John Osborne had begun emailing concerned customers as follows:

The Shareholders and Senior Management felt the SAFEST policy for Customer and Employees would be to post our stores for No Concealed Carry. Personally, as a 34 year police veteran, I agree with the decision!

JOHN W. OSBORNE
Director of Security
(513)366-8497

Is five robberies in less than a week's time the type of "safety" UDF has in mind? Contact information for Ohio-based United Dairy Farmers is as follows:

United Dairy Farmers
Robert Lindner Jr., President
3955 Montgomery Rd.
Cincinnati,Ohio 45212
www.udfinc.com

Phone: 1-800-833-9911
Email: consumerrelations@udfinc.com

Oh, and if they meant it as a state right, why exactly did this come up on September 9th, 1789?



They specifically struck down the words 'for the common defence' which would unambiguosly make the right one in the collective. Why would they do that, if such was what it was meant to apply to?

Whoops source: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(sj001133))

If that doesn't work go here: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsjlink.html and find the Sept. 9th entry.

I'm done debunking every random thing you find on the internet.

All of these theories have been briefed in the courts. They have been rejected.

As I have said, feel free to violate a gun law and argue your Second Amendment rights as a defence. File the DOJ memo. Call me when you get out of jail.

Powers and rights are completely different things.

Power

A specific capacity, faculty, or aptitude.

The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.


Right

That which is just, morally good, legal, proper, or fitting.

A just or legal claim.

As stated before, nowhere are rights bestowed upon the states.

So you agree that anyone that speaks about "state's rights" is a babbling idiot?

Perhaps you should warn Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

guns dont kill humans, humans kill humans. true, there is the occasional fatal accident. same thing with cars. should we outlaw cars? i dont think so. guns, however, are inateley good. they provide food, protection, and a general sense of security. it is only when some yahoo decides that he wants to kill someone when things go wrong. do you think the gun is saying "hey mister criminal, use me to commit violent crime or murder!"? do you? i dont think they are :sniper: :mp5:

It may be true that 'people kill people', but you must admit that it's a hell of a lot easier to kill someone with an assault rifle than with a 12th century broadsword. I'm sure a lot of people would think twice about killing someone if it meant lacerating that person with a scepter as opposed to just pointing and clicking.

And as for the self-defense argument, I could easily argue that a Nazi MG-42 gunner mowing down American GIs on D-Day was just acting in self-defense. After all, the men coming ashore were tasked with taking out the shore defenses, which ultimately led to almost all of the defenders' deaths. Cutting them down was an attempt to keep them from tossing grenades into his gunnery nest and killing him, right?

Discharging a firearm is by its very nature an offensive-oriented action. Judo is self-defense. Tae Kwon Do is self-defense. Shooting a gun is shooting a gun

I'll think about it. Although my primary answer is that there is no legal ground for the court to rule a gun law is "unreasonable" or unconstitutional. As their is no right to firearms under the Constitution, gun control on the federal level is a matter for the legislature.

In the meantime, would you care to give your answer?

And you might note that Judge Bork has clearly stated his position that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to possess firearms.

Reasonable
Well, to be totally honest, I think we had about the right balance with the passage of the 1968 Gun Control Act. Making people buy it over-the-counter and face-to-face was a good idea. I think "Instant Check" is reasonable-and a reasonable protection for dealers, (though I think more liability should be borne on the Database side-inaccurate information and similar names has caused both refusals of legit purchases, and sales to persons who may not be...) The 4473, and the background check (instant type) are good gun-laws-provided they're enforced as written-though it would be nice if every Jurisdiction could just use the instant-check, since there are some people who (as previously pointed out) might need one immediately, so there are some local ordinances that in my opinion ought to be repealed. (that's a local issue, though, our subject is Nationwide.)
so...In my opinion, we're at the very ragged edge of 'reasonable' gun-control right now.
In my opinion, applying strict penalties to misuse of firearms is a much better solution, it keeps the Liability where it belongs-on the person doing the crime. It's a matter of what I consider "Justice"-you don't penalize someone who has not deliberately harmed someone else because of what some (filthy word) went out and did. When you don't hold people who do bad things accountable, or responsible, for their actions, you just get irresponsible people.

Machinegun Restrictions: What we have in place right now (okay, thirteen years ago...) is just fine. The Class-III licensing structure and the 1938 law are quite enough. I would rather they hadn't changed the legal definition of 'assault rifle' to include those cheaply-made semi-auto knockoffs, but that's the way it goes. If someone really wants a Legal Machinegun, they should hve to jump through a lot of hoops-machineguns are area-effect weapons, in most rational self-defense roles, a machinegun is...quite un-necessary, and at best no better than a twelve-guage shotgun. (in fact, the shotgun's a better choice anyway-at close range, it will pattern closer than any but the most advanced SMG's out there, and it requires less practice to use effectively.) Support-weapon class machineguns likewise belong under some kind of regulatory control, and the FFL Class-III is a good one-it isn't a total ban, and it restricts ownership to those whom are ready,able, and willing to demonstrate a level of responsibility and accept the Liability of owning one.

Unreasonable
I think National Registration is NOT a good idea-for a couple of reasons. I get (used to get) Canadian television out here, and their Registration programme has been, as far as I can tell, a fiscal and Beaurocratic nightmare.
My natural inclination when someone (anyone) wants to accumulate more power (and information is power, imho) is suspicion of their motives, and of their integrity. (this is why I opposed, and still oppose, the Patriot Act and Patriot II.) I think the California bans (multiple) are just plain stupid. Making Law based on "what ifs" is, imho, moronic and not reasonable-particularly when it is law directed at minority outcomes that have not yet occurred.
(if someone were taking pot-shots at airplanes with .50 rifles, I'm sure it would be all-over the airwaves. This has not happened.)
I don't think universal registration in a nation of over 260 million people is either practical, or reasonable.

Ballistic Fingerprinting: I know how to defeat this-it's not difficult to do, and if I know, others do too-and it's not even an illegitimate means. On semi-auto pistols, you change the barrel out. Rifles can be bored out and re-rifled to a different calibre, handloading can change the characteristics of bullets, and more than one handloader makes evrything but the cartridge case and primers. (I'm looking at my own jacketing-press, built using plans from a manual printed in 1925. I can turn out everything from FMJ to HPBT on it.)
Further, you dont' have to go to the extent of changing the calibre, because you can always "Fire Lap" or "bore Lap" the weapon (this takes about an hour at the range, and costs about ten bucks, not including ammo) to smooth out the internal toolmarks. It's a common technique with target-shooters and some hunters, and does definitely change the "Fingerprint" of the firearm.

Comparative ballistics and keeping a database of firearms known to have been, in the past, used in crimes is about as good as you can get here-there are more component and barrel makers out there than you can reasonably keep track of, and more turnover in that end of the firearms business than most people are willing to believe.

(I'm working on my own rifling head design-there are dozens of different 'favoured' methods just in scrape-type rifling, then there's the button-rifling outfits, keeping track of everyone involved just commercially is probably a nightmare. Getting the Hobbyists would be worse.)

For my Law-Enforcement Tax-Dollars, I would much rather they stick to handling crimes that have already occurred, thankyewverymuch.

Ammunition bans: Not smart, not really practical, and somewhat unreasonable. Just because a crook uses "Black Talons" to shoot some people, they ban a whole class of bullet. No... it wasn't the bullets that shot those people, it was the man operating the gun.
Likewise with steel-cored ammunition. My mom carries a Soviet-era Makarov as her carry-gun. using U.S. made lead-core ammunition, it's not much better than a .380. Using the Soviet washd-steel-jackets, it's much more fearsome, and has terminals up there with .45 ACP on a light-recoiling, small-frame. This allows her (she isn't a large woman) to reasonably expect to stop a large man from doign bad things to her in the parking lot where she works (which is a good thing-the area's pretty crime-ridden and the company she works for exempts itself from responsibility for the safety of employees in the parking areas. Bad things have been done to other employees there in the past.)

There is a reasonable exception to this: purpose-built Armour Piercing ammunition, Tracers (that can start fires), and Exploding bullets. Most of those are already controlled items. Further restrictions are, in my opinion, un-necessary, provided current restrictions are enforced.

All right I've been busy so forgive me for bringing this up out of context, but you are about to be turned into roadkill.

ROFLASTC.

... <gasp> sorry <giggle> but you are asking to be ridiculed.

I return barb for barb.

Adressing point 1: The statute does not change the meaning of the second ammendment, what it does is it gives us a definition of militia to use when interpreting the constitution. The definition provided by the statute overwhelmingly supports the group ownership viewpoint, but the group allowed to own guns is every individual between the ages of 16 and 45, 64 for prior service. Your communal rights argument is fully supported, but the community allowed to own guns is a group of individuals of a certain age range, therefore the government position is indirectly supporting the individual ownership theory, either the law is the law or it isn't, if it isn't then the Miller decision and the anti-gun laws are moot because if one law is invalid then they are all invalid.

So, if Congress passes a law tomorrow that defines speech as sign-language and only sign-language, then First Amendment suddenly only protects sign-language?

Sorry, boyo, but that is not how it works.

The statute does not define the Consitutional term. It cannot.

Adressing point 2: The ammendment never says state militia, the exact wording you are so happy to constantly quote is "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." The state referenced is the nation-state of America, not the states that make up that nation. This interpretation comes from the Cornell university law department, it is not my interpretation but in fact that of constitutional scholars. It seems you are losing ground here, boy.

Wow. The Cornell university law department. I'm so impressed.

Even with a cite, I don't I'd care. I'll take the US Supreme Court and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits over whoever at Cornell, thank you.

Regardless, how does this help you. Gee, it doesn't.

Adressing point 3: Don't they? The courts logic was based on the assumption that the shotgun would not be useful to a person defending the nation, however a militia in new york city would not have as much room to maneuver a firearm in the close quarters of many of the cities areas as a national guard member in the open field would. Since the definition of militia is all able bodied individuals between 16 and 45 then the weapon would be useful to a militia formed in an urban setting, the only requirement for the gun to be legal was that it had to have, again from Cornell universities archives, "any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,", a militia in an urban setting would have its efficiency increased by the greater maneuverability of a sawed off shotgun as compared to a full length shotgun or a rifle. Maneuverability is just about the only way to survive on a modern battlefield, so a militia in a heavily wooded area would also benefit from the reduced length because there would be less chance of the gun getting tangled in something and would therefore benefit almost as much as an urban militia from a shortened shotgun.

:headbang:

I've explained this several times. Am I using too big of words?

It. Is. Not. The. Type. Of. Weapon. That. Matters.

The logic of Miller is that the possession or use of a weapon is not protected under the Second Amendment unless the possession or use in question bears a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

So, Gun X in the hands of joe blow on the street = not protected.

Same Gun X in the hands of Jim Milita for a purpose related to the preservation of a well-regulated militia maintained by the state = protected.

Clear enough, skippy?

I'm done debunking every random thing you find on the internet.

All of these theories have been briefed in the courts. They have been rejected.

As I have said, feel free to violate a gun law and argue your Second Amendment rights as a defence. File the DOJ memo. Call me when you get out of jail.
Heh

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/fifth_circuit_c.php#more

In United States v. Everist, 368 F.3d 517 (5th Cir. 2004), the issue was a challenge to the Federal bar on felons in possession. The Circuit, citing its earlier ruling in Emerson, upheld the bar, noting:

The Second Amendment right is subject to "limited narrowly tailored specific exceptions or restrictions for particular cases that are reasonable and not inconsistent with the right of Americans generally to individually keep and bear their private arms as historically understood in this country." Id . at 261. It is not inconsistent with the Second Amendment to limit the ability of convicted felons to keep and possess firearms.

Irrespective of whether his offense was violent in nature, a felon has shown manifest disregard for the rights of others. He may not justly complain of the limitation on his liberty when his possession of firearms would otherwise threaten the security of his fellow citizens. See id. (noting that "it is clear that felons, infants and those of unsound mind may be prohibited from possessing firearms"). Accordingly, § 922(g)(1) represents a limited and narrowly tailored exception to the freedom to possess firearms, reasonable in its purposes and consistent with the right to bear arms protected under the Second Amendment.*fn1 Everist's constitutional challenge to § 922(g)(1) fails.*fn2


*fn1 We need not decide whether the Second Amendment's boundaries are properly defined through strict scrutiny analysis, though it remains certain that the federal government may not restrain the freedom to bear arms based on mere whimsy or convenience. See Emerson , 270 F.3d at 261.

To my thinking, jurisprudence like this is critical to establishing the Second Amendment as a viable legal force. It cuts off the argument that "well, if we do recognize a right to arms we'll have to let convicted bank robbers pack, or allow heat-seeking missiles and thermonuclear devices." Which is roughly equivalent to "If we recognize freedom of speech and press we'll have to protect blackmail (which is no more than accepting money for not speaking), extortion notes, and death threats to the president." (Though I once did have a law prof. who made an interesting argument that the last is first amendment protected.).

In future posts I intend to develop this further, but right now I've got to stop for a while and practice law.
No lower court decision that takes into account the 2nd as an individual right eh?


Ooooh, and an upcoming court case whose outcome should be rather interesting.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7882



First, the six plaintiffs in Parker were personally and unambiguously threatened with prosecution by D.C. -- both in the trial court during oral argument and by the Mayor's official spokesperson, as quoted in the press. Second, D.C. never raised standing as an issue until told to do so by the trial judge. Nor did D.C.'s prominent friends-of-the-court -- the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence -- raise standing in their extensive briefing. Most likely, they believed the city's announced intent to prosecute the Parker plaintiffs was enough to confer standing even under the strict guidelines of Navegar. Third, the trial judge ordered supplemental briefing on the standing question, but then proceeded to issue an opinion on the merits without even mentioning standing. Fourth, counsel for Parker filed 34 separate assertions of material facts, which D.C. was invited to dispute. The key assertion that D.C. officials "actively enforce" the gun ban was never disputed, and thus admitted.


IT WOULD SEEM, THEREFORE, that Navegar's exacting standing requirement -- a credible and specific threat of prosecution -- is amply satisfied in Parker. Indeed, the first threat to prosecute the Parker plaintiffs appeared on the front page of the Washington Times just two days after Parker was filed. According to the news report, Mayor Anthony A. Williams' office said the city would not budge. "The last thing this city needs is more handguns," said the Mayor's official spokesman, Tony Bullock. He added, "You're not going to see any will on the part of this mayor to relax the gun laws in the District." "We have to maintain the deterrent effect of the gun laws." The mayor's office now claims that it was merely "stating a general policy that the District intends to enforce its weapons laws." But that characterization of the statement ignores its context. The city's "general policy" was not front page news in the morning papers. The Parker lawsuit, filed two days earlier, was. That lawsuit, and the desire of the six Parker plaintiffs to possess proscribed firearms, is what prompted the Washington Times story, "Residents Challenge District's Gun Ban."

Later, in response to a direct question by the District Court at oral argument, counsel for D.C. stated once again that the Parker plaintiffs would be prosecuted for violating the challenged statutes:

THE COURT: "The city is not going to essentially grant immunity to these people. If they go out and take steps to possess firearms, they'll be prosecuted, I assume. They're not going to get a free ride because they're a plaintiff in this case, are they?"

D.C. COUNSEL: "No, and I think that Your Honor is correct, but I don't think the fact that if, in fact, they break the law and we would enforce the law that they're breaking, that that necessarily confers automatic standing on them in this case."

Three of the Parker plaintiffs were present in the courtroom to hear the city's attorney corroborate that they would, in fact, be prosecuted if they were to possess functional firearms within their homes. D.C.'s threat did not represent new policy. It reflected the policy that existed when Parker was filed. The plaintiffs were always justified in fearing that they would be prosecuted. But were there any doubt on that score, D.C.'s straightforward admission at oral argument surely confirmed the threat.

In hindsight, the Mayor's office might have been more circumspect in speaking with the press, and D.C. counsel might wish to have responded differently to the court's questions about prosecuting the Parker plaintiffs. Maybe counsel would now say, "If these plaintiffs break the law, they could be prosecuted. But whether they're actually prosecuted depends on a number of variables. We hope and intend to enforce all of our laws. Still, I am not prepared to speculate about the likelihood that these particular plaintiffs will get a free ride." But that was not the answer. The answer was "No" to immunity, and "Your Honor is correct" in response to the court's observation that "if they go out and take steps to possess firearms, they'll be prosecuted."

In Washington, D.C., six Parker plaintiffs want to be able to defend themselves in their own residences. Parker is not about machine guns and assault weapons on the street. It's about ordinary, garden-variety handguns, in the home for self-defense. No handgun can be registered in D.C. Even pistols registered prior to the District's 1976 ban cannot be carried from room to room in the home without a license, which is never granted. All firearms in the home, including rifles and shotguns, must be unloaded and either disassembled or bound by a trigger lock. Essentially, no one in the District can possess a functional firearm. And the law applies not just to unfit persons like felons, minors, or the mentally incompetent, but across-the-board to ordinary, honest, responsible citizens like the Parker plaintiffs.

It's time for the D.C. Circuit, and perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court, to tell us whether the city's total ban on all functional weapons withstands scrutiny under the Second Amendment. No one should have to break the law in order to vindicate a constitutional right. The D.C. Circuit put the principle succinctly in Seegars: "Public policy should encourage a person aggrieved by the laws he considers unconstitutional to seek a declaratory judgment against the [government], all the while complying with the challenged law, rather than to deliberately break the law and take his chances in the ensuing suit or prosecution." Now the D.C. Circuit has an opportunity to implement that crystalline principle by granting standing in Parker.

Wonder what the court will say in it's decision on that one.

It. Is. Not. The. Type. Of. Weapon. That. Matters.


I suppose this is just Dicta.

These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

By that logic, we should all have assault rifles.

In any event, you know damn well that the Court should never have even heard Miller. Plus, most real legal scholars, like Tribe, consider it silent as to the collective/individual dispute, and adopt the interpretation he offered.

Also, I though the Fifth circuit had adopted the individual view in Emmerson.

Cadillac-Gage, That comment is definatley worthy of respect.. from both sides. I know that many gun advocates fear any sort of legislation for fear of a slippery slope, its good to see you break the mold and admit that even though you dont agree with the lengths to which gun legislation is pushed, some of it is well thought out and should remain. Despite our differences, I have a great amount of respect for those who can look clearly at an issue and make an assessment thats not based on a party line, but in the best interest of everyone.

Well... I'm not actually thinking of the interests of 'everyone' as much as how sudden changes create unintended consequences. The 1994 passage of the Brady act turned cheaply-made junk into gold for a lot of dealers and some private sellers, this also happened with the Bush Import ban of 1990. We got to the level of regulation we currently endure gradually. People had time to adapt to the changes as they were made. the sunset of the Brady Law's restrictions on semi-autos came just as gradually as the imposition, but the impacts were already known. From a firearms-business perspective, restrictions like Brady are a gold-mine in some sectors (the magazine bans, for instance, boosted popularity for bigger-bore handguns. Dealers with overstock of large-cap magazines were selling them out at a premium, merely because of the 'forbidden fruit' nature... I made a LOT of money in 1995 with preban mags.)

But I think we need to have some restrictions-I also think we might need to stop trying to impose more restrictions than we already have-I think we have, as they say, "Enough". What they do in Great Britain or Australia (or even Canada) is their business. I think it is un-necessary to emulate others merely because they adopt a new law, or have a particular way of seeing things. If I wanted to live like a European, I would save my money, and go live in Europe. Having the Alternative is better than everyone being the same.

I suppose this is just Dicta.



By that logic, we should all have assault rifles.

A) where does that say anything about the type of weapon?

B) put it in context, please. Random sentences from Miller don't help much do they?

In any event, you know damn well that the Court should never have even heard Miller.

No. Why?

Plus, most real legal scholars, like Tribe, consider it silent as to the collective/individual dispute, and adopt the interpretation he offered.

Really? It is true many consider it not definitive.

Most courts do.

And you don't really agree with Tribe on this issue, do you?

Also, I though the Fifth circuit had adopted the individual view in Emmerson.

It did, sort of. It upheld the gun restriction in question, so it was arguably dicta. No appeal could be had of that part of the decision. Subsequent decisions by the Fifth Circuit have waffled at worst, but none have struck down any gun law.

Well... I'm not actually thinking of the interests of 'everyone' as much as how sudden changes create unintended consequences. The 1994 passage of the Brady act turned cheaply-made junk into gold for a lot of dealers and some private sellers, this also happened with the Bush Import ban of 1990. We got to the level of regulation we currently endure gradually. People had time to adapt to the changes as they were made. the sunset of the Brady Law's restrictions on semi-autos came just as gradually as the imposition, but the impacts were already known. From a firearms-business perspective, restrictions like Brady are a gold-mine in some sectors (the magazine bans, for instance, boosted popularity for bigger-bore handguns. Dealers with overstock of large-cap magazines were selling them out at a premium, merely because of the 'forbidden fruit' nature... I made a LOT of money in 1995 with preban mags.)

But I think we need to have some restrictions-I also think we might need to stop trying to impose more restrictions than we already have-I think we have, as they say, "Enough". What they do in Great Britain or Australia (or even Canada) is their business. I think it is un-necessary to emulate others merely because they adopt a new law, or have a particular way of seeing things. If I wanted to live like a European, I would save my money, and go live in Europe. Having the Alternative is better than everyone being the same.


yes i certainly got that from your previous post to cat.. to which i can only say.. we do not agree on the extent to which gun regulation can be used reasonably and effectively.
this does not change my original assessment that your ability to critically think through the entire process is commendable.

Heh

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2005/04/fifth_circuit_c.php#more


No lower court decision that takes into account the 2nd as an individual right eh?

I previously noted there was one exception -- Emerson.

And did you actually read what you posted. (A) the gun law was upheld and (b) the Court described whether to apply strict scrutiny as an open question. All laws under the 14th Amendment that restrict any liberty whatsoever are subject to reasonableness review -- they cannot be arbitrary and capricious. Fundamental rights are afforded strict scrutiny.

Thank you for illustrating how the Fifth Circuit has been backing away from Emerson.

Ooooh, and an upcoming court case whose outcome should be rather interesting.

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7882



Wonder what the court will say in it's decision on that one.

I doubt anything suprising will come of it.

The article happens to be written by the attorneys for the plaintiffs -- one of whom is a Cato Institute flunky. They exaggerate the importance of the case.

Here (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-213.pdf) is the lower court decision -- which happens to echo what I've been trying to tell you about the state of the law.

A) where does that say anything about the type of weapon?


men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

B) put it in context, please. Random sentences from Miller don't help much do they?

Well put your argument in context. What if the court had evidence before is showing that a sawed off shotgun was indeed a weapon in use by the millitary and 'possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia' - or had taken judicial notice of such. Then the result would have been the opposite. (As that was the basis of the holding). This indicates, if anything, that the militia clause of the second ammendment is dependent upon the individual right to bear arms, provided said arms are of millitary utility.



No. Why?

It was moot.


Really? It is true many consider it not definitive.

Yeah, IIRC, Tribe, who is an individual right proponent, said that.


Most courts do.

So what, are you really going to base your whole argument on res judicata.

You in 1950: Seperate is equal, SCOTUS and all lower courts have consistently ruled that way.

And you don't really agree with Tribe on this issue, do you?

Why not? he probably has forgotten more about Con. Law than anyone on this board will ever know.

It did, sort of. It upheld the gun restriction in question, so it was arguably dicta. No appeal could be had of that part of the decision. Subsequent decisions by the Fifth Circuit have waffled at worst, but none have struck down any gun law.

Well reasonable people can differ about whether or not this is the unanimous opinion of the all circuits.

I doubt anything suprising will come of it.

The article happens to be written by the attorneys for the plaintiffs -- one of whom is a Cato Institute flunky. They exaggerate the importance of the case.

Here (http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/03-213.pdf) is the lower court decision -- which happens to echo what I've been trying to tell you about the state of the law.
That court decision uses more circular logic than anything I have yet to post. It's fucking hilarious. That and the judges need to take a friggin constitutional history course that includes the various Framer's political positions and the various laws that they endorsed/attempted to pass. It's sad really. Especially given their reasoning of what militia means when concerning the 2nd amendment as James Madison can be directly attributed to saying this:
[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Given their definition of militia in the decision their reasoning can be considered nothing but extremely specious. Especially when they basically admit at the end of the damned thing that the history surrounding the 2nd amendment proves them full of shit but they're too much of cowards to go against a trend that didn't even start in the courts until the 20th century.

Personelly there is nothing worng with guns andit is politically incorrect for u to say this but I will tell u what if they band guns crime with be increased by a huge percent and what r ur reasonings for y guns r evil

*

That quote still did not say anything about the nature of the weapon. Did it vague refer to weapons? Yes. Did it say anything about the nature of them? No.

Well put your argument in context. What if the court had evidence before is showing that a sawed off shotgun was indeed a weapon in use by the millitary and 'possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia' - or had taken judicial notice of such. Then the result would have been the opposite. (As that was the basis of the holding). This indicates, if anything, that the militia clause of the second ammendment is dependent upon the individual right to bear arms, provided said arms are of millitary utility.

If Miller's possession of the shotgun had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the outcome would have been different.

If Miller's possession of X had some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.

It is not the type of weapon that is relevant.

It does not matter whether a shotgun has military use.

Scenario 1:
1. TC possesses weapon A at X time and Y place.
2. Weapon A is used by the military or the National Guard or by a state militia.
3. TC's possession of weapon A is not protected by the Second Amendment.

Scenario 2:
1. TC possesses weapon A at X time and Y place.
2. TC is a member of a well-regulated militia maintained by the state and his on duty and required to possess weapon A at X time and Y place.
3. TC's possession of weapon A is protected by the Second Amendment


It was moot.

Why?


[QUOTE=Thomas Cranmer]So what, are you really going to base your whole argument on res judicata.

You in 1950: Seperate is equal, SCOTUS and all lower courts have consistently ruled that way.

I've argued the merits repeated in these Forums and in this thread. No one has bothered to reply to even 2 of my 3 main arguments. Not my fault you came in late.

Bad, bad example.

Second Amendment caselaw here is both longer in time and more consistent.

Both SCOTUS and the lower courts began chipping away at Plessy soon after it was adopted.

Brown v. Board was the final nail in the coffin. It was momentous, but it was not a wholesale change in direction.

And I don't care what you say current gun control laws are not even remotely comparable to segregation. The comparison is insulting.

Well reasonable people can differ about whether or not this is the unanimous opinion of the all circuits.

Really? Name case from another circuit.