What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice.
I'll go along with that.
...Indeed, the appeals court acknowledged that Washington might be able to justify such things as concealed-carry restrictions, registration requirements and proficiency testing.
I won't go along with that. But chances are that's exactly the interpretation we'll get--if the Court takes the case, and if they "rule" in favor of individual rights.
There are some highly respected names in Second Amendment scholarship--people with a lot more formal academic credentials and wider name recognition than I'll ever have--who are on record stating registration would not be an infringement. To back this up, they cite militia laws and practices employed in the Founding Era, where a Citizen would be required to muster with certain predefined arms and accoutrements and subject them to inspection and being recorded into the rolls.
That I have no problem with. If the sheriff puts out a general call to arms (right), I expect him to ensure those of us answering the call won't end up being a detriment. But I see nothing in early militia laws suggesting the people of that era would have considered arms not brought to muster as anybody's business, and am unaware of any widespread legal parallel for recording what people of that time kept in their homes, or bought, sold or bartered.
As always, I'm willing to be educated. That said, the historic lessons of registration ought to be brutally clear to all, and the answer based on that alone ought to be "No."
As an aside, it's nice to see these sentiments getting ink in The Los Angeles Times.
13 comments:
I couln't resist a quick comment on the headline.
Permissable Restrictions?
Only so long as they are are in the form of MINIMUM requirements.
Such as, "Each Citizen must maintain a MINIMUMof one long arm and on handgun and keep a MINIMUM of 500 rounds per caliber on hand."
(My $0.02)
That's what I was thinking. As long as you are not infringing on someone elses rights, why would there be any restrictions? You can practice what ever wierd, wacko religion you want, as long as there are no sacrifices. I should be able to drive around with an M60 mounted in the bed of my truck, as long as I'm not mowing down innocent people. It would be nessecary to the security of a FREE state.
"Permissible restrictions", eh?
Permissible by whom? Not me.
That's the crux of the problem: who decides what's "permissible".
I hope the SC doesn't agree to hear the case.
Think about it. They can only MESS up a PERFECT decision.
They're not going to say "hey, the appeals court got it EXACTLY right" are they.
We're better off with the lower court precedant that can be used elsewhere in the country to roll back other severe restrictions.
Scott
Permissable restrictions today are different from what they would have been in say - 1785.
In 1785 there was (just about) a gun in every home. No one was out to throw you in jail for the way the gun looked or for how many you bought in a week, or the caliber was too big, or you had a gun on mainstreet. Tracking of who had what was done by memory or a written log. The gov't didn't even dream of restricting arms. Some of the wealthy even owned crew served cannons,or so I've heard. It was a gun-friendly country. Forward to today and none of this is true. I tho't I was presumed innocent until proven guilty. Why restrict my possession of a legal and moral product because I 'might' do something illegal with it. Tues I drove 300 miles and saw someone on the side of the road getting a ticket from the State Trooper. When I get home there will not be a ticket waiting for me because that guy got a ticket. Likewise today someone will misuse a gun. But I don't expect to be punished tomorrow for some jerkwad's stupidity. The 2nd amend says 'Let there by guns' and I expect my gov't to shutup and get out of the way unless I threaten (this is not some yeast-infected idiot's idea of 'threaten') someone's life, liberty or pursuit of property (happiness.) By the way, you can use your speech to disturb the peace. You just have to be willing to pay the price. You can legally yell fire in a crowded theatre - if there is a fire.
It's hardly a perfect decision Scott--the lower court left room for plenty of infringements.
Me, I'm tired of waiting. Let them declare it a collective right if they dare--and the sooner the better.
We can't put off the inevitable forever. It's past time we found out what all these fine words we espouse really amount to, and I'm not going to let my children bear the burden of the cowardice and laziness of my generation if I can at all help it.
"What restrictions on gun possession and use would be permissible? Almost no one argues that 2nd Amendment rights are absolute. After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice."-David C.
Let's examine that statement. In answer to the first sentence which is a question, the answer is "NONE" that is what "...shall not be infringed." means.
Then it is followed with a non-sequitir as logical reasoning used as justification for infringements which are not allowed. The subject was changed from the exercise of rights which are guaranteed by our constitution to the commission of crimes which is not. That shift in the dialogue works only on the stupid. Unfortunately, there are many more of them than the intelligent.
Since the exercise of rights and the commission of crimes are not even peripherally related that makes this argument as justification for denial of rights invalid. No sane man can see it any other way.
However, for the sake of argument let's assume that fraudulent argument has merit. Can it not also apply to the second amendment? Of course it can.
To paraphrase: "............... After all, under the 1st Amendment, the right to free speech does not protect disturbing the peace; religious freedom does not shield human sacrifice." Let's change it to read ".........
After all, under the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms does not protect murder, robbery, or unwarranted harm to others."
Isn't that statement just as true? Yes. So, even granting faux legitimacy to their own argument, only reaffirms the fact that rights cannot be restricted. Criminal acts can be and should be, but rights cannot be restricted in expectation of abuse.
They lose this debate any time they engage someone with the presence of mind to point this out.
We lose the debate through surrender when we stand there in dumb silence because we have not done our mental homework and don't call them on the falsity of their argument, nor point out that even if that argument were legitimate it speaks for us, not them.
Shame on people on our side who are only irritable about this issue, but too lazy or too afraid of ridicule to think it through and fight the damn fight.
There is not a defensible reason to be only irritable, we should be enraged enough to call them out.
David, rereading my comment I realize I inadvertently made it appear that the quote was yours. I did not intend such. I merely meant to show that the quote was in the original post and that you had referenced it as said by someone else.
Forgive my oversight.
Maybe David, and I understand your frustration.
But as it stands, it is perfect because the DC gun law is struck down. DC will have to enact future laws against the spectre of an appeals court decision declaring the 2nd to protect "an individual right". We can start arguing then that licensing, registration, carry permits etc violate that right.
I doubt the SC will come along and say, "yes, and btw, licensing, registration, concealed carry permitting etc AREN'T constitutional either".
As you noted, if anything they would try to uphold the decision (I'm not sure they could with a straight face overturn it) but with enough "wiggle" room to allow most any other "reasonable" restriction.
My prediction - they will not take the case. And though denial of cert isn't supposed to be used as a support for the decision, I think the SC letting this ruling stand will speak volumes.
Scott
Oh, good... I just saw that and freaked. I figured everybody was hip to the format convention here--I present major article quotes in italics and indents, then when my voice takes over it goes back to regular font and margins.
And I didn't read it as an intentional decpetion the way you did, SA--they way I read it would be akin to: What kind of gun restrictions should there be? Restrctions on criminal misuse, just like we do with other rights that are abused and cause harm to others.
Had I read it the way you did, of course I would have objected. I don't think that was Levy's intnet--he is very careful to craft only the most limited of arguments to enhance the likelihood of success in this case.
David,
I'm one of those "whackos" who holds that the RKABA is absolute and the only restriction that can be placed is on USAGE.
You can keep and bear whatever arm you want, but if you use it improperly or incorrectly to the detriment of your fellow man, then your rights, and possibly your life are forfeit.
David, I don't think that was Levy's intent either. He thinks he is friendly to the second amendment, but when I read that he thinks "some" restrictions are "reasonable" and are not infringements I must assume he has been Stockholmed, at least partially.
When we discuss what infringements are "reasonable" and therefore not infringements or even allow for their possibility to exist we have ceded the right, we think we are protecting by compromise, to the state who gets to say what restrictions are "reasonable".
That is how we got here. Defenders willing to give a little. A little here, a little there, a little more, a little now, a little later, pretty soon it ain't so litte.
I think Mr. Levy, as a lawyer, is fighting the battle in the way that the legal system works. Gone are the days of sweeping court decisions, it appears. Seems the legal battles these days are, ahem, incremental (sorry, had to use that word).
We have to fight this battle legislatively as well. I'm worried that a narrow ruling in our favor will lead to complacency.
I agree that we should be unyielding in response to further 'infringements.' While holding that line, we need to dismantle the current 'gun' control laws piece by piece.
Post a Comment