Self-defense is a self-evident human right. Thankfully, a court finally has reaffirmed that the Constitution and common sense are in alignment on your right to defend yourself, using reasonable force (i.e. a handgun, but not a bazooka) within your own home.
Yeah, I wouldn't want to be forced to use a bazooka inside my home--it would not only make one hell of a mess of things, but to need one would indicate a dire situation indeed.
And not meaning to open the door on the right of Al Qaeda to carry live anthrax strains and suitcase nukes on board commercial airliners, but Dennis, it seems you're penning us in a bit tighter than the Framers intended. For instance, there was Tench Coxe, who said:
Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier...
That leads to the question of who has authority to declare such limits, and importantly, where do they derive it?
And then we have the Constitutional authority for Congress to enlist private individuals with Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which would make for very difficult operations if small arms are all we are "authorized" to keep.
It makes for an intriguing discussion--the dividing line between slippery slope and the Constitution not being "a suicide pact," a term I've often found that discourages thinking things through. I'd be interested in hearing your comments.
I have my own ideas and I'll weigh in tonight.
[Via HZ]
Well, this is a thorny question. Jeff Cooper stated he felt the 2nd pertained to personal arms, not crew served weapons. Which would include LAWs Rockets, grenades, handguns, rifles of any type, edged weapons, etc. I am sort of inclined to agree, but I am not absolutely positive. It would be very difficult to own a F-22, a B2 bomber, a LA class attack sub, a M1A1 Abrams tank or an aircraft carrier due to the expenses involved and the necessity of having to hire people to maintain the equipment. I am up in the air on this one.
ReplyDeleteBack in the day (1770's) there was a distinction between ordnance and arms.... ordnance covering artillery and such items. I guess ordnance would cover a bazooka.
ReplyDeleteSo, while the militia is allowed to bear arms, and since the Founding Fathers didn't mince words, I'd guess that ordnance is excluded.
Of course, a broader (and more recent) definition of "ordnance" includes "weapons and ammunition," so throw out that newfangled definition and stick with what Mr. Jefferson and crew knew
didn't some people own private ships that were armed?
ReplyDeleteback to modern day, what about some of these ROVs and such? If you can afford a remote control tank, know how to maintain it yourself, then why not? A crew of one, much like the army's most recently discarded recruitment slogan (which always struck me as the polar opposite of a disciplined fighting force of individuals working together, perhaps someone tipped them off as how stupid that sounded)
As for a bazooka, no, that's why there shouldn't be one gun a month limits. when I go to the hardware store I buy a few tools, one for each different job, all at once.
If you're wealthy enough you can buy and operate Sherman Tank or a Mig-21 or a Blackhawk or whatever. Back in the old days the wealthy raised up Militias and used their funds to arm them because it benefited them and their community. I want a bazooka but not in my condo, I like the doors at both ends to remain intact and I don't hate my neighbors.
ReplyDeleteI suppose that if we're going to have this debate, that it appears to be rational to draw a line at "no area of effect weapons."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, nothing with an explosive radius such as a rocket launcher, grenades, etc.
After all, it's extremely difficult and exceedingly unlikely that you'll find yourself in a defensive situation where you would do well to use an indiscriminate area weapon.
FWIW, I think this argument can be knocked down on constitutional grounds. David already referenced letters of marque, etc. But it should help to shut down people who use the reductio ad absurdum of "oh, sure, you want an assault rifle, but why not legalize bazookas too!"
For what it's worth, I really and truly think that someone should institute a meme similar to Godwin's Law that applies to people who try to shut down a debate on gun policy by claiming that the pro-gun crowd just wants to legalize bazookas, nukes, and anthrax.
ReplyDeleteJustin, grenades, at least those of the 40mm nature fall under "destructive device" already do they not? All you need now is your paperwork, the cost, and the $200 tax per grenade.
ReplyDeleteAlso, seeing as how they're commonly affixed to assault rifles I've got no problem with them, especially since they could easily pass the Miller test of suitability to militia use.
As for an "area weapons" defensive use, I can think of plenty of situations that they would be very handy.
As the idea behind the second amendment was to prohibit infringement of arms to the people so that they may thwart the forces of evil government, ours or others', it seems unlikely they would exclude arms of such sufficiency and effectiveness as to make the task unachievable.
ReplyDeleteHobbit-
ReplyDeleteI'm not really disagreeing so much as trying to espouse a first-step middle ground.
The way I see it, grenades, rockets, and other such items are the domain of exotic collectors with obscene amounts of disposable income.
That's a fact that's not going to change any time soon, regardless of the suitability per Miller.
So, when it comes to debating likely rules, regs, and laws regarding gun policy, it's best to just skip past all of the hyperbolic "well what if your neighbor was building a nuke in his basement?! What then, smartguy?" stuff that just keeps meaningful discussions from being played out.
Personally I think the Second Amendment really does mean "shall not be infringed".
ReplyDeleteIf you can afford it, you can have a tank. Of course you won't be able to drive it on public roads, and unless you own a lot of acreage you probably can't fire the main gun, but you can own it.
Somewhere up around nukes and bioweapons there's a line, but I think it has to do with 'the state' being able to enforce penalties against misuse.
So yeah, Bill Gates can have his private army and it can be pretty darn well equipped, if he so chooses to expend his billions.
Gotcha Justin, however, why limit your bargaining ability? Go all out and compromise on those instead of only machine guns. I understand the baby steps concept you're putting forward, however there are many things that can happen on that journey. It's better to take that leap and say we want ALL of our right back, not just a small portion.
ReplyDeleteAlso, lets look at it from another angle. If only the rich can afford them, how's that any different from today. It's limiting the arms to a select few, the same thing that the second is meant to protect against.
I could possibly see a middle ground on things like tanks, but I can also see how it would be bad. Things such as those would need a dedicated range or facility to practice with, so perhaps they could be stored someplace. Of course, any government as fearful of it's citizens would just pull a first strike on those locations. That kind of thinking is why we've got manbearpig's creation, the internet.
I'll settle for anything man portable for the time, no restriction on personal protection items, scopes, thermal. With that you could come up with anything else you might need if the time ever came.
Oh yeah, as far as who gets to set the limit. I can tell you for sure who doesn't have the authority to set limits and that's an appointed AG and anyone else claiming "sporting purposes or use."
ReplyDeleteLets be reasonable and say, okay, no nukes. But all I ask is frickin sharks with laser beams.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the line was drawn quite clearly by Mr. Jefferson;
ReplyDelete"Knowing of the war when she left Jamaica, & that our coast was lined with small French privateers, she armed for her defence, & took one of those commissions usually called letters of marque. She arrived here safely without having had any rencounter of any sort. Can it be necessary to say that a merchant vessel is not a privateer? That tho' she has arms to defend herself in time of war, in the course of her regular commerce, this no more makes her a privateer, than a husbandman following his plough, in time of war, with a knife or pistol in his pocket, is thereby made a soldier? The occupation
of a privateer is attack and plunder, that of a merchant-vessel is commerce & self-preservation."
- Thomas Jefferson to Gouverneur Morris, 08/16/1793 [The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, Federal Edition. Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford].
"Letters of Marque and Reprisal" covered privately-owned merchant vessels on the open sea. And NOT on the Continental United States. Congress desired "control", and rightfully so, over arms on the sea. For, an armed merchant vessel, or privateer, (pirate), could involve us in a war with another nation.
Believe that we are entitled to every weapon of defense as what is currently used by our military. With the exception of Weapons of Mass Destruction.
The dividing line would naturally have to be 'weapons of mass destruction'; Nukes, Biological, etc. For, those are weapons of a nature, which arbitrary use would adversely effect a great many others. Whom may not necessarily desire to be involved, in the battle. Thusly encroaching on their freedom, not to mention their life, liberty and property.
It is bad enough that our government has use of such weapons. If they ever became tyrannical enough to use them on us. Then the solution is to "alter or abolish" that government and institute another. And, Not to destroy every last person in the country....
I'm inclined to let the market determine who can own what, but with the rate of technology, nukes could be a few thousand dollars away in the not too distant future.
ReplyDeleteThough I'm sure the vast majority of us are responsible and would not detonate a nuke let alone own one, but I think the risk of one nuclear-detonating lunatic that slips through the cracks outweighs our right to own nukes.
Congress has authority over militias, not individuals and their guns in the sense of the Second Amendment, hence I could see it reasonable for organized non-federalized militias to possess a few tactical nukes with congressional oversight.
If we are to deem nukes as firearms, and take the Constitution as a textual instruction manual, then all of us should own a nuke for it's necessary to the security of a free state. But freedom isn't free even at the cost of other freedoms, like your property rights and my right to bear arms (or not) on your property. Individuals owning nukes at their whim overwhelmingly risks others' right to life, liberty, etc.
I believe nukes are ok for the collective ownership in a militia, not individuals.
BTW, there is ample evidence of The People owning "cannon", "grenadoes", and "bombs" during the colonial period and beyond. As well as later; gatling guns, and even later; machine guns, all without regulation. (M.G.'s until 1934, and that was a perverse tax scheme. Although, undoubtly having the appearance of the start of a much wider reaching plan).
ReplyDeleteIn fact, if I remember correctly. David posted a download to "Guns" mag. That contained ads offering We The People live cannons and anti-tank weapons for a very reasonable price. And that was just in the 50's. Dynamite, fuse, etc. could be purchased at the local hardware store.
This argument, hasn't really been an "argument". Until the shrill 'panty-wetters' got ahold of it, that is.
"That leads to the question of who has authority to declare such limits, and importantly, where do they derive it?"
ReplyDeleteI don't know the case law, if any, where Congress or any other can limit types of arms under section 8, but clearly, out of thin air, SCOTUS has found many limitations on many rights for various "compelling interests."
I think we are forced to live with that, and apparently SCOTUS has that derived power. Because they said so.
To me, bio weapons and nukes give an individual or group of individuals the power of an army.
ReplyDeleteThe Constitution states:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
I can't see an individual or group of individuals legitimately assigning themselves more power than a state.
Anything below that, such as artillery, etc., would be so impractical for an individual or group of individuals to use aggressively that they would be committing suicide if they tried. So I really don't see much of a serious threat from that.
I'll admit I haven't given this as much though as some of you have--there are some good comments here. Me, I'm working to restore a right to individual infantry-suitable arms. That's where I focus my energy.
But we need to be prepared to counter the antis who belittle us for suggesting there may be a slippery slope when it comes to taking our guns away--and then hypocritically introduce a sheer precipice of illogic when it comes time to protest incremental gains we make in restoring usurped rights.
Let's remember who works for whom. The government is the servant of the people, and the purpose of the 2A is to make sure it stays that way. My conclusion is that the people should have access to whatever its servants use. As for WMD's, maybe if we'd not allow our servants to use them, we'd stay out of others' business a little more.
ReplyDeleteIt says that the STATES may not own them, NOT that the PEOPLE may not own them. It is the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
ReplyDeleteDo I think that the PEOPLE should be allowed to own nukes etc... ? Yes, actually I do. No, I am not comfortable with that, but it does give .gov an incentive to stay hands off. Yessiree Bob, it helps to minimize a tyranny of the majority.
However, I do not see it as a major problem as many people would not be willing to expend the money and time necessary to safely store nukes. Much as I dislike it, a simple requirement that any prospective owner have an insurance policy to pay for damage caused by improper storage, etc... would narrow the field even more.
Anything elseis leaving the camel's nose under the tent flap.
As far as bio-weapons, there really is no way to restrict them. The low level agents can be cooked up by anyone with a knowledge of H.S. biology. While, the more esoteric stuff takes specialized labs so that the creators aren't infected. So, I kind of consider it a non-issue.
I recognize that I am in the minority. I prefer to live and let live, much like a number of our Founders.
I realize that I come to this discussion quite late, and that this comment is unlikely to be seen much, but I think it's easy enough to get around the "issue" (if you want to call it that) of a broad, literal reading of the Second Amendment permitting nukes.
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that treaties that are ratified by the Senate and signed by the President trump even the Constitution. The nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has had that ratification and signature for, what--35 years or more? I suspect (but am not sure) that other treaties (of which the U.S. is a signatory) place strict limits on chemical and biological weapons.