Bush Administration’s Amicus Brief in D.C. Gun Case
The Bush Administration has filed an amicus brief in the D.C. gun case, which you can read here. The Administration agrees that gun ownership is an individual right, but says it is subject to reasonable restrictions. Here is a representative paragraph:
Although the court of appeals correctly held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, it did not apply the correct standard for evaluating respondent’s Second Amendment claim. Like other provisions of the Constitution that secure individual rights, the Second Amendment’s protection of individual rights does not render all laws limiting gun ownership automatically invalid. To the contrary, the Second Amendment, properly construed, allows for reasonable regulation of firearms, must be interpreted in light of context and history, and is subject to important exceptions, such as the rule that convicted felons may be denied firearms because those persons have never been understood to be within the Amendment’s protections. Nothing in the Second Amendment properly understood—and certainly no principle necessary to decide this case—calls for invalidation of the numerous federal laws regulating firearms.
Allah seems to treat this as though it’s weakness on the part of the Administration — although it’s hard to know whether he’s just having a little fun throwing red meat to his readers.
But I think the Administration is correct. I support the Second Amendment — but I don’t want felons carrying firearms, and I don’t think the Founding Fathers would have been upset at a law preventing that.
Where the rubber hits the road is in the application of the principle in other contexts. Can the government ban say, machine guns? Purists would say no — but would they say the same thing about nuclear weapons? If the idea behind the Second Amendment is to give the citizenry a credible threat of violence against an oppressive government, then citizens need nukes, right? Which means that when the TSA finds one in some guy’s briefcase, they should wave him though — right? Second Amendment, baby!
I don’t think any of us thinks the absolutism goes this far. So yes, there will have to be “balancing.” That’s okay — we do it for the First Amendment all the time, and that is also a cherished freedom and individual right. For example, you can’t libel people without consequence. All rights have some limits. What those limits are is the real question.
UPDATE: Some commenters take the position articulated in this comment:
The nut of the problem with the SG brief is that while it purports to support an individual rights interpretation, it calls for a reversal and remand, rather than asking SCOTUS to affirm the D.C. Cir. opinion while clarifying the correct level of scrutiny.
But the Government argued that the law may well fail under the standard it advocates. Commenters here seem to assume that, by arguing for a reversal so the Court of Appeals can analyze the case under the standard the Government advocates, the Government is urging that the law be upheld. That is not the case. See more here.
All rights have some limits. What those limits are is the real question.
Interesting. I agree with your view on this one.
voice of reason (10af7e) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:25 amA purist would say that nuclear weapons are not arms, they are ordnance. Machine guns, on the other hand, are arms. Therefore, it’s perfectly reasonable for the government to ban private possession of nukes while allowing possession of machine guns.
A similar line of reasoning applies to cannons (artillery).
Steverino (e00589) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:41 amMakes sense. That “well-regulated” part of the Second Amendment was plainly intended to show that some restrictions conducive to that aim were allowed, such as banning felons from owning weapons, but the basic right has to be respected.
Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:42 amThe nut of the problem with the SG brief is that while it purports to support an individual rights interpretation, it calls for a reversal and remand, rather than asking SCOTUS to affirm the D.C. Cir. opinion while clarifying the correct level of scrutiny. I share the concern that reasonable gun regulations (e.g. prohibitions on violent felon possession) be left intact, but any individual rights reading of the amendment that leaves enough wiggle room for SCOTUS or any other court to uphold an absolute, across-the-board ban like D.C.’s can be fairly criticized as an “individual rights” reading in name only.
Further, this is not an either/or situation– i.e., we are not left with a choice between a 2A that is either a) essentially toothless, permitting absolute bans on handgun possession/purchase for even law-abiding citizens, or b) a 2A that protects even citizen ownership of nuclear arms. The Framers would have understood the word “arms” in the 2A to mean arms that could be borne and carried into battle by an individual, not artillery.
NYC 3L (e6ebbd) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:49 amThe problem with your “reasoning” is that you are wrong.
Felons (if not incarcerated) carried firearms when the second amendment was penned; and private citizens, if they could afford them, owned cannon and warships.
The bottom line is that this right is fundamental in nature and strict scrutiny is required when analyzing laws that seek to touch it.
If SCOTUS adopts the DOJ position, will the bloggers, newspapers and other “enlightened ones” support the Federal effort to ban books/pamphlets/websites it deems dangerous to national security? After all, individual rights are subject to reasonable regulations, aren’t they?
The Founders enumerated the second amendment for a reason.
John Q. Citizen, Esq. (b5414e) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:09 amIt’s obvious that the First Amendment does not apply to modern publishing methods, but to the historic hectograph and sheet-fed hand-cranked letterpress, and only if non-lead type is used in the latter.
htom (412a17) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:15 amWasn’t the court of appeals simply saying that a complete, blanket ban on handguns wasn’t a “reasonable” restriction?
The court made no attempt to invalidate all gun regulations, the hysterics of the Bush administration aside. (IMHO this administration has been no friend of the Second Amendment.)
What the anti-civil rights crowd is really afraid of is that this case will show what shaky legal ground other “sensible restrictions” on guns are resting on. They fear that once the proverbial dam breaks, there will be no way of stopping other courts from reaching similar conclusions about other regulations, thereby allowing the peasants to be armed without groveling before a bureaucrat and presenting his “papers.”
And we can’t have that, can we?
CTD (7054d2) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:36 amNYC 3L is right, the key is not the discussion of absolutism but the recommendation to reverse and remand.
I guess this is a reminder that all alliances, gains and rights are temporary, and must be renewed and maintained constantly.
Whoever said there was no rest for the wicked got it half right – apparently there’s no rest for anyone.
Merovign (4744a2) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:42 amI wonder about something:
If a 1-day waiting period for an abortion is an unreasonable restriction…what about a 15-day wait for a gun?
Steverino (e00589) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:02 amSomething making sense to Mr. Fikes certainly doesn’t make his opinion correct. Examining the meaning of the language used by the founders at the time they used it removes much of the alleged ambiguity of the Second Amendment.
1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare “to control by rule, direct”Regulation is first recorded 1672, “act of regulating;” sense of “rule for management” is first attested 1715
Looking at the amendment itself:
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.
Let us substitute the definition of regulate for the sake of clarity.
A Militia controlled by rule, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Another example of the marvelous system of checks and balances crafted into our Constitution. Not only is security for a free state from external threat provided for by an armed militia but security from an internal threat, an over zealous or corrupt militia, that is itself subject to control by an armed citizenry.
The Second Amendment does not refer to the right of the militia to be armed but rather to the right of the people to control the milita by being armed themselves.
Amused Observer (552550) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:25 amBradley, the term “well-regulated” as an adjective does not refer to restrictions. In the 18th century, the term was used to describe something that was worked well, well trained would be a more modern equivalent. The use of the term survived for a while in describing clocks for example, a “well-regulated” clock ran evenly and predictably.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:54 amYou set up a nice straw man, Mr. Patterico. But he’s just an easy target.
Consider the last (and only) time the Supremes took up the Second, UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). The key phrase is
An M16 machine gun is “ordinary military equipment” to the American soldier.
Consider also the rights of white men enumerated in DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856):
Man, I wish preview worked right…here goes!
Ranten N. Raven (e5e6e1) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:13 amPrivate citizens owned Warships in the days of the Constitution’s writing.
What else are Letters of Marquis and Reprisal for?
Techie (ed20d9) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:17 am“Reasonable regulation” is no test I have heard of before for the Bill of Rights. I have seen “undue burden” but that has only gone as far as the hoops you have to jump through to exercise your right — it does not narrow the right. “Reasonable regulation” is for the exercise of plenary police power which is not limited by an enumerated right. Kind of like rational basis. So, yes, Bush’s DOJ is in fact trying to sell an anti-gun argument. Which is to be expected. No Bush has ever been a friend of gun owners. Daddy Bush was the only Southern Senator to vote for the Guntrol Act of 1968 and imposed, by executive order, the importation of scary-looking firearms four years before the so-called Assault Weapons Ban. The Shrub vetoed Texas’s first concealed carry law, when governor, and only signed the veto-proof second law when the Texas legislature shoved it down his throat.
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:22 am*Daddy Bush was the only Southern Senator to vote for the Gun Control Act of 1968 and imposed, by executive order, the ban on importation of scary-looking firearms four years before the so-called Assault Weapons Ban.*
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:26 amThe important thing is that the people be equipped with enough firepower to overthrow the government if it becomes necessary. Will the “reasonable restrictions” inhibit this ability?
If the government feels that the people SHOULD NOT have the ability to overthrow it, they should say so and we can have a national discussion about this.
j curtis (411a00) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:38 amThe Framers didn’t think it was reasonable to leave the people ill-prepared to overthrow a government that might grow oppressive. Maybe rebellion sounds stupid to us, but back in the days of the Founding the principal safeguard of individual liberty was an armed citizenry. The Founding Generation committed treason against the Crown and founded an altogether new country, and justified these actions by reference to the asserted right of the people to overthrow an oppressive government. In light of this historical context, it would’ve been more than a little hypocritical for the new American government to say to the erstwhile colonists, “But now that we’ve got this Constitution in place, we must have the power to prevent you citizens from being sufficiently well-armed that you might someday do to your American current rulers what you did to your British former rulers.” The right of rebellion (which only a well-armed citizenry can exercise) wasn’t supposed to be a one-shot deal (“you have the right to overthrow your oppressive government only if it’s the government of George III”), and if it was, then the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution would have to be considered the pinnacles of human hypocrisy.
Alan (78d614) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:44 amNo, Jay Curtis. Our founders, who fought the Revolution putting not only themselves but also their children in peril of hanging for treason, did not in any way intend for any bunch of anti-American assholes with guns to destroy the greatest nation ever to be created in the history of the world. They gave us a peaceful mechanism for changing our government in the Constitution. They also allowed us the power to hang the McVeighs and Padillas.
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:47 amThe Jay Curtis’s and Alans too.
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:49 amJ Curtis is a separate person from Jay Curtis. While I sometimes agree with his positions, I often disagree.
Here is a rather famous quote that some of you might recognize.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Can the Declaration of Independence be construed to express the beliefs and desires of the founding fathers? If yes, then it seems to be clear that they reserved the rights of future generations to abolish this nations government and institute a new government.
Based on their express statements that the people should have the right to overthrow the government, I find it rather ludicrous that they would have wanted the government to disarm the people, thereby taking away the possibility an armed uprising. A plain language interpretation of the 2A bears this out. If only the government is allowed to have automatic weapons, artillery, and advanced weapons, the people are deprived of any chance of a successful revolution.
On the other hand, I am not an anarchist. Allow the ownership of any type of conventional weapons system but impose big penalties if the weapons are used to commit a crime. Take the Swiss model where there is mandatory military service. After completion of basic training and the first round of service the person takes their weapon home with them and is required to maintain proficiency with it. Because the general public is so well armed, very few violent crimes occur in Switzerland.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:27 amOh, I’m so horribly offended, nk wants to hang me.
As for your idiocy about how the FOunders “did not in any way intend for any bunch of anti-American assholes with guns to destroy the greatest nation ever. . . .” No, the Founders understood that an armed citizenry would be the only way to stop anti-American assholes in government from destroying the greatest nation ever. You have the most suspicious view of private citizens and, bizarrely, the most beneficient view of government–quite different from James Madison, the father of our Constitution, who in Federalist No. 46 sneered at the European nations for being “afraid to trust the people with arms.”
Maybe the rise of the McVeighs and Padillas makes the Founders’ vision look quaint, but let’s not deceive ourselves as to what the Founders’ vision was. nk, you’re as historically illiterate as you are ill-mannered. That’s hard to do.
Alan (78d614) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:29 am18-They gave us a peaceful mechanism for changing our government in the Constitution.
What is there to ensure that the government doesn’t take away our “peaceful mechanism” for changing our government? Most of these politcians and judges in place today would burn The Constitution to ashes if they weren’t afraid of an armed citizenry.
j curtis (411a00) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:30 am“…intend for any bunch of anti-American assholes with guns to destroy the greatest nation ever to be created in the history of the world.”
No, they did not. They wanted a bunch of patriotic Americans to keep the elected assholes with the military and police forces from ruining the greatest nation ever to be created in the history of the world.
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:31 amhow can you possibly argue in favor of d.c.’s blanket ban from a self-described perspective of individual rights? talking about convicted felons in this context is merely a distraction away from the rights of law-abiding citizens, which are at stake here.
assistant devil's advocate (9bbd9d) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:32 amAll right, Jay Curtis. I am also very happy that we are no longer a colony of a miserable, cold little island in the North Atlantic ruled by some inbred, talentless morons. But firing on the flag is a hell of a thing.
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:34 amI’d also like to respond to Patterico’s statement that “I don’t think any of us thinks the absolutism goes this far. So yes, there will have to be ‘balancing.’ That’s okay — we do it for the First Amendment all the time, and that is also a cherished freedom and individual right. For example, you can’t libel people without consequence. All rights have some limits. What those limits are is the real question.”
I don’t agree with that. I do take an absolutist view of the freedom of speech, even though I recognize that the government may restrict the freedom of speech. Contradiction? Hardly. The question is what would the people have understood their rights to mean, when the Bill of Rights was written. Whatever freedoms of speech, and gun ownership, and so on, they enjoyed, are meant to be protected absolutely.
Libel was already illegal at the time of the Founding. So was perjury. So was whatever would’ve been thought to breach the peace. So when the First Amendment was ratified, guaranteeing “the freedom of speech,” no one would’ve thought that they were getting the right to engage in libel, perjury, breach of the peace, etc., because those things were not part of the freedom of speech enjoyed in 1791. As for the right to keep and bear arms, the simple fact is that the people understood they had a right to amass whatever arsenals they thought they needed to defend their freedoms against an overweening government. nk and Patterico may think of this as a crackpot idea, but if you reject that crackpot idea then (I repeat this because no one makes any serious effort to rebut it) the American Revolution and Declaration of Independence were bloody acts of hypocrisy. How dare the Founding Generation assert for itself the right to rebel, and then deny all future generations that right? Seriously–explain how dare they do that.
Alan (78d614) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:36 amAlan and I seem to have been trying to make the same point at the same time about the framers intentions. He said it better. 😎
I am not suggesting that we need to have a revolution. I am saying that the founders clearly meant for the populace to be armed with weapons capable of making a revolution possible.
My suspicion is that the McVeighs and the Paillas actually believe that we had passed the point where revolution is necessary. A lot of people seem to believe this. Kook fringe? Probably. But what percentage of people living in the Colonies actually were involved with the Declaration of Independence? Once the action was taken, then people had to decide what they really wanted and pick a side.
An honest look at history shows that the last revolution was started over much less than the level of oppression that is currently in place in our society. Taxation of 3% on tea? Forced boarding of British soldiers in private homes? A trifle when compared to 30% income tax, 50% death tax, taxes on business income before also taxing on the salary paid to the owner, property taxes, etc. I am fairly sure that our founding fathers would be having a lynching party in Washington, D.C. if they were alive now.
Just food for thought. (No, I am not advocating a revolution or violence of any sort.)
Jay Curtis (8f6541) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:49 amAccording to some legal scholars I’ve read, “Arms” had a specific meaning at the time, which meant a weapon equivalent to that carried by a regular soldier of the period. Hence, selective fire weapons would be legal under the 2d Amendment. They, in fact, were legal until 1986, when an un-discussed “rider” to an Act of Congress was literally slipped in at the last minute before the law was passed. The concept, which came to us from the Anti-Federalists (as opposed to the Federalists), was a final check-and-balance to be used in the event that the all-encompassing Federal Government (read “Nanny State”) abused its powers and prevented the citizenry from restraining the abusive power of Government through political means.
“Arms” did not cover specialty weapons, which were cannons and grenades at the time. The specialty weapons were properly the ownership of the Militia. Thus, sadly, all the straw-man garbage about nuclear weapons, tanks, rocket propelled grenades, crew-served machine guns, etc., are NOT 2d Amendment-covered weapons.
Also, the Founders (Federalists and Anti-Federalists alike) understood what I call the “rule of thirds” about revolutions. The Federalists were one-third of the country, the Anti-Federalists were one-third, and the Tories were one-third. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists ganged up on the Tories and won our independence. The Federalists then had to compromise with the Anti-Federalists to pass the Constitution, in exchange for the inclusion of a Bill of Rights (an Anti-Federalist requirement), which laid out the rights and powers of individuals against the newly-created Federal Govenment.
Lastly, many of the colonies had categories of what are now labeled as “prohibited persons” from owning firearms – typically Indians, and such. The South used such laws to preclude slaves from owning guns. My assertions are all supported by many law review articles discussing such things.
I agree with Patterico. There must be reasonable limitations on the 2d Amendment right, but the Supreme Court also has a duty to preserve the ultimate intent of the Anti-Federalist Founders in establishing that Right. Perversely, if the Court adopts the “Arms” historical meaning, then specialty weapons, such as pistols (which were Officer weapons), would not necessarily be covered by a rigorously interpreted 2d Amendment. (BTW, I own handguns, and would not like to see further restrictions upon ownership, I’m just pointing out the full impact of my research.)
509th Bob (dfa1f1) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:51 amAccording to ‘as-written’ theory, wouldn’t our right to ‘arms’ be limited to the ‘arms’ in existence at the time, muzzle loading single shot rifles, pistols and cannon (and shotguns?)? At the same time, not having computerized databases, they certainly couldn’t have blessed the regulations such as the registration and do-not-sell restrictions pushed today.
Or if you buy into inferring their intent, then I’d argue they intended that the people be allowed to arm themselves to protect themselves with whatever arms were available, including machine guns, howitzers, M1A1s, and so on, as they wouldn’t have wanted the people to be underarmed compared to the threat(s) they were facing… and in the case of rising against a corrupt government, why shouldn’t the people have the right to arm themselves as least as well as the Army commanded by the corrupt government?
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 1/14/2008 @ 11:53 amNo, the “as-written” theory (limiting ownership to muskets, etc., of the period) has never been adopted by the Supreme Court – not for the First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, or Sixth Amendment.
In truth, the citizens do not *need* access to tanks, fighter-bomber jets, crew-served weapons, etc. If you look at the history of the U.S. Civil War, and the civil wars of the 20th Century, you will notice that the military splits just as the civilian population does. Thus, in the hypothetical Second American Revolution scenario, if the Revolution was based upon some sound basis for revolution, parts (and toys) of the American military would join with the citizens. The U.S. military *is* a citizen army, and thus are not the “professional standing army,” owing its sole allegiance to the Government, that the Founders expressed a distinct fear of. That is the implied threat meant to be served by 2d Amendment – a warning to policitians that, in the worst case scenario, there would be a price to pay in blood for their self-aggrandizing seizures and exercises of power.
509th Bob (dfa1f1) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:05 pmAs comment 12 points out, the absurdity of Miller is that if one takes that decision to it’s logical conclusion, then the 2nd Amendment only protects military-grade weaponry. Given that a .50 machine gun is indisputably a piece of “ordinary military equipment,” then isn’t something like it automatically protected by the 2nd Amendment?
I’ve often wandered what the outcome of the case would have been if Miller had been in possession of say, a heavy machine gun, rather than a sawed-off shotgun.
CTD (7054d2) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:11 pmPatterico,
Your balancing approach reminds me of Stephen Breyer’s Active Liberty as analyzed by Dave Kopel.
DRJ (517d26) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:17 pmPresumably, CTD, you are referring to Ma Deuce? Check out Junkyardblog, for the 3-day machine gun shoot held there. Ma Deuce is there, along with hundreds of other types of automatic weapons. The 1986 machine gun ban (which was rejected by Congress and the Attorney General in 1934 due to 2d Amendment concerns) applies only to weapons made after 1986. ATF refuses to grant new Title III authorizations (legal authority to own machine guns) because Congress explicitly refused them the right to spend taxpayer monies for the issue of such licenses. But, under my analysis (above), no, the Ma Deuce is a “crew-served” weapon not necessarily covered by the 2d Amendment. A .50 caliber semi-automatic rifle, however is (although the Democrats are trying to eliminate these, as well).
509th Bob (dfa1f1) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:22 pmSigh,
“Buying into thier infurred intent” as opposed to making up new meanings with new intent?
Facts are stubborn things, yet let us accept Steve’s interpretation of “as written theory” for a moment.
Arms “weapon,” 1300, from O.Fr. armes (pl.), from L. arma “weapons,” lit. “tools, implements of war
Seems fairly simple and inclusive to me.
If I have mischaractorized Steve’s position I apologize in advance. I assume from the over all tone of his post that he does not indeed agree with the arguements in his second paragraph regarding the amount and level of citizen weoponry.
Amused Observer (552550) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:24 pmBob (30): I didn’t say that it was adopted by the Supreme Court, just the result of using such an approach and was aimed at those attempting to read into the exact wording and punctuation of the Amendment.
And to your second point, the first big battle of such a revolution might not between the Army and the people, but between factions of the Army over control of the weaponry.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:27 pmNYC 3L and nk have it right; the crucial question is the level of scrutiny. Sounds like the DOJ brief asks for something akin to “rational basis” as in the Commerce Clause, rather than the “strict scrutiny” that applies to most of the Bill of Rights amendments. If the proper test is applied — strict scrutiny — there is no way a blanket ban such as the DC law imposes can stand.
Tim K (7e41e8) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:28 pmAO: I wasn’t expressing my preferences, just trying to point out problems flowing from using either of those two approaches. Personally, I’m fine with registration, limitations on the types of weapons allowed and denying certain people the right to have guns…. but that’s my feelings of how things ought to be and not based on any reading of the 2nd amendment.
steve sturm (40e5a6) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:32 pmSorry to disillusion you, Mr. Bradley J. Fikes, but “well regulated”, in the context of the Second Amendment, has little to do with the modern concept of the word: “regulation”. The words are a military “Term of Art” and mean “well equipped, trained and disciplined”. The hierarchy of military units begins with “Regulars” being the best equipped and trained, followed in order by “Organized Militia”, and “Volunteer Militia”. It is the Volunteer Militia that the phrase “well regulated” is meant to influence to be well equipped, trained and prepared.
It would seem that the impending SCOTUS scrutiny of the Second Amendment has an awful lot of lawyers worried that it might just mean what it says and not what some want it to say.
Norris. (ac312c) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:42 pm“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
FARLEY (c65b6e) — 1/14/2008 @ 12:42 pm— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
We right wingers do have a consistency problem here. We want to have guns largely unregulated and still want to prevent violent felons from having them.
Why do we support 8 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) which supposedly does that? Only it don’t. Patterico, are there any cases which modify this piece of crud? I mean of course ‘interpret’ it. So it doesn’t say what it appears to say.
Because what it appears to say is:
Were you convicted of a misdemeanor for which you got fined, but for which the maximum possible punishment was over year. No guns for you me laddy.
Wifey told some credulous judge a nose stretcher about how she needs your ass kicked out of the house because she ‘fears’ you and the judge issued an order? No guns for you either.
The statute says the prohibition on all you felonious thugs (listen up Martha Stewart, I’m talkin’ about you) is that you may not:”ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.”
What does that mean? Does it come from a federal inability to regulate anything but interstate stuff?
Ho can I possess something “in or affecting commerce”? Does it all together mean that Martha Stewart can buy a gun if she buys it and keeps it in the state where it was made?
Does anybody care if Martha Stewart has a handgun?
What I really see here is a lawyerish conspiracy to write incomprehensible gobbledygook so other lawyers can be paid to fight over what it really means. Not to mention federal over-reaching.
Or have I got this all wrong?
BlacquesJacquesShellacques (324683) — 1/14/2008 @ 1:27 pm“Lastly, many of the colonies had categories of what are now labeled as “prohibited persons” from owning firearms – typically Indians, and such. The South used such laws to preclude slaves from owning guns. My assertions are all supported by many law review articles discussing such things.”
The definition of Militia is the issue. At the time of Andrew Jackson it was every free man between 17 and 45 who was capable of bearing arms. In fact, that is the group that supported Jackson and who were invited to the White House after his election to the horror of the Federalists. One reason for including the whereas “Militia” was to exclude any possibility of slaves obtaining arms. Kind of ironic to see Democrats clinging to the “Militia” in their attempts to disarm to public. Felons and the like would also be excluded under the definition of Militia.
Mike K (6d4fc3) — 1/14/2008 @ 1:41 pmI don’t see “strict scrutiny” in 2nd Amendment interpretation.
It (1) protects an individual right, and (2) does not prohibit reasonable regulations of gun ownership, because it recognizes the states’ powers to regulate the militia.
steve (f374d8) — 1/14/2008 @ 1:49 pmSteve, what state power to regulate the militia? The Constitution actually limits that.
Article I Section 8 empowers Congress:
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/14/2008 @ 1:56 pm“…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;”
Steve, what state power to regulate the militia?
From U.S. v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3rd Cir. 1942):
steve (f374d8) — 1/14/2008 @ 2:09 pmI accept the proposition that the 2nd Amendment was intended by the Framers to preserve the right of private citizens to own weapons, militia or not. However, Patterico’s analysis raises an issue concerning the 2nd Amendment that I’ve not been able to reconcile to my own satisfaction.
If we accept that the conceptual basis of the 2nd Amendment is found in the Framers’ intention to create a citizenry that can defend itself and act as a counterweight to an oppressive government, hasn’t that idea been completely overtaken by technology?
In the late 18th century, the flintlock was the cutting edge in infantry technology. If he was of a mind to, a citizen could arm himself similarly at a modest cost. In sufficient numbers the citizenry would be a fair match for a government intent on oppression. Today, citizens armed with rifles would be a pitiable defense against a modern infantry unit. Few would argue that citizens should be allowed to own grenade launchers, tanks, artillery pieces and armored personnel carriers, but without such weapons there is no longer any real power to oppose the government, militarily at least.
Therefore, isn’t the idea that 2nd Amendment rights must he preserved as a bulwark against government overreaching a little unrealistic?
Cicero (8db983) — 1/14/2008 @ 2:16 pmsteve, that circuit court opinion is just factually false. It has been repeatedly shown that contemporary discussion of the amendment discussed individual rights of the people, not states. There is rather a large body of scholarship on this. And amusingly that contradicts what you wrote in comment 42.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/14/2008 @ 2:18 pmViolent felons will have guns, whether we do or not; disarming the public only provides them unarmed victims.
htom (412a17) — 1/14/2008 @ 5:08 pmSee my UPDATE for a response.
I agree.
But making it illegal for violent felons to have guns means that you can arrest them when you find them in possession of guns. And that is good. Do you agree with that?
Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/14/2008 @ 5:46 pmTherefore, isn’t the idea that 2nd Amendment rights must he preserved as a bulwark against government overreaching a little unrealistic?
Comment by Cicero — 1/14/2008 @ 2:16 pm
Even in asymetrical warfare, the better armed the weaker side is, the better their outlook becomes.
As we can see by the current rebellions in the US, the “sanctuary cities”, the heavily armed US government is powerless to stop them and even those in Washington who do confront the rebellions do it in terms of “we won’t send you money” which is like telling them “you’re on your own now”.
Anyone willing to revolt against the government should be willing to take that deal which amounts to a peaceful secession. Guns or lack thereof will affect the willingness of the government to agree to the peaceful secession.
j curtis (411a00) — 1/14/2008 @ 6:20 pmRe: Your Update and the Government’s brief, it sounds like the government is arguing for a strict scrutiny standard similar to school desegregation cases. Does that mean the federal courts will take over gun control, too?
DRJ (517d26) — 1/14/2008 @ 6:29 pmWhy is the Second Amendment subject to “intermediate scrutiny” other than for the fact that the government would have to show an important governmental interest and not expediency for gun control laws if strict scrutiny were applied?
Maybe keeping guns out of the hands of “violent felons” is an important governmental interest but how about out of the hands of somebody who committed felony tax evasion twenty years ago? Ditto for the Lautenberg Amendment. Maybe sending someone to prison because a judge not a jury, by a preponderance of the evidence not beyond a reasonable doubt, believed that he was a danger for domestic violence is an important governmental interest. Or maybe not.
There is a strict scrutiny remedy available which does not punish both those who will commit crimes with guns and those who will not. Imprisonment for those who do commit crimes and the right to defend themselves for those who do not.
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 6:29 pmj curtis,
All your arguments here, so far, have done is provide an overwhelming governmental interest for the strictest gun control. Stop scaring white people.
nk (dda711) — 1/14/2008 @ 6:32 pmMiller…
Saying that short-barrelled shot-guns were not a weapon used by soldiers in combat demonstrated the abominable ignorance of the ’39 Court;
Banning Machine-Guns…
Please request of the Dept. of the Treasury the number of Machine-Guns registered to, and owned by American citizens under the National Firearms Act of 1934.
They weren’t banned, but they were taxed. At least in 1934, after going through the experience of the Volstedt Act, politicians still realized that they needed to change the Constitution to forbid citizens those “unalienable” rights;
Crew-served weapons…
Since Privateers (ships) were authorized under Letters of Marque or Reprisal, and are a “crew-served weapon”, it would seem that tanks, artillery, and heavy-machine guns would also (there use would only be lawful upon issuance of such Letter, probably);
Regulated…
As mentioned, a term of art. Militia were considered “regulated” by being well-trained under the auspices of the NCA (National Command Authority). Shotgun barrels, and multi-position machine-guns (air-craft wing-mounts; ie, P-51) are “regulated” so that the points of impacts converge at some point. Fighter pilots would tell their crew-chiefs how much “lead” they wanted – whether they wanted the convergence at a longer, or shorter range.
Rebellion not possible with only small-arms…
And this is why the Soviet Union is still in control of Afghanistan (If Helo pilots get so upset with just being pinpointed with a laser pointer, I can only imagine how they’ll freak-out when they get that “tone” in their headsets from a Stinger – Modern Man’s equivalent of a 5-pounder).
It sounds like the Bush Administration is trying to cut a fine line again; just like they did with the AW expiration. Saying that they support in individual right understanding, but then wanting a reversal and remand means that they want another bite at the apple (probably to screw us again, just as they tried to do with the Border).
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:40 pmAnother Drew, no one showed up at the Supreme Court to argue the fact that in fact the US Army had used short barrelled shotguns in the trenches of WWI.
As for machine guns, while the NFA of ’34 supposedly just set up a taxation scheme, new registrations have been forbidden for two decades now.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/14/2008 @ 7:52 pmFair enough, but it’s not just a question of whether or not there will be balancing, so much as what that balancing test will be. There wouldn’t have been anywhere near the outrage among gunnies today if the gummit had come down in favor of strict rather than “heightened” (intermediate) scrutiny. Less still if they hadn’t specifically endorsed the constitutionality of other federal gun laws, rather than simply noting that other laws are out there, which raise different issues and ought to be ruled on separately.
Xrlq (b65a72) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:07 pmTime to remind those wealthy eletistst in WASHINGTON D.C.(DISTRICT of CROOKS)That we live in a republic and not a monarcy
krazy kagu (f24007) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:09 pmNew registrations…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:13 pmYes, but guns that were first registered prior to GHWB’s restriction in 1989, can be transferred to a new owner. If you want to buy a 1928 Thompson (for instance), they are available (SGN, 12/1/07: $13,995) if you can get the transfer through the system. The hardest part is usually getting the permission of your Local Chief Law Enforcement Officer, and/or your State Attorney General. In some states (such as here in CA), it has been a hopeless cause for much longer than 1989.
The NRA’s position on the SG brief is here:
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/14/2008 @ 8:24 pmhttp://www.nraila.org/News/Read/NewsReleases.aspx?ID=10481
15 – nk
George H. W. Bush ran for the Senate twice, but lost both times. He was in Congress in 1968, but I’m not sure whether he voted for the Gun Control Act of 1968. Could you clarify or correct your assertion?
GaryC (c1edfb) — 1/14/2008 @ 9:45 pmI believe that the Second Amendment applies to small arms. Even in the days of the founders of this nation, I don’t thing they intended for individuals to have canons. I bevieve that small arms include all types of assault weapons. If you read the Federalist Papers there is no doubt that the founders meant for individuals to be armed.
Scott Todd (80a0c0) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:06 pmScott Todd #60…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/14/2008 @ 10:22 pmBut, as has been noted earlier, Colonists possessed cannon. The British expedition to Lexington and Concord on April 19, 1775, was to confiscate the stores of powder and shot (cannon stuff) from one or both of those villages. These were arms of the volunteer (unorganized) militia.
GaryC #59,
I desist. Since I cannot document GHWB’s vote, I admit that I may be wrong on both counts and that I was only repeating gossip.
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 3:42 amAnother Drew –
Regarding the early ownership of heavy crew-served weapons (such as cannons), the cannons “belonged” to the militia, not to the individual militiaman. The militia would bring their arms, powder, and ball from their respective homes and assemble (typically on the village green, where the town’s cannon was). As to ship’s armament, yes, those guns existed, but they generally were not owned by the Captain or any individual crew member. The ships (those that might seek a Letter of Marque) were corporately owned by investors, and thus once more the concept of individually and privately held heavy weaponry tends not to be supported by historical precedent. I’m sure, however, that somebody somewhere at some point in time did, in fact, individually own and possess some heavy weapon, but that or those exceptions do not appear to be the basis for the social theory envisioned by the Founders.
A little off-topic – this is a great thread with generally excellent comments and insights!
509th Bob (dfa1f1) — 1/15/2008 @ 4:40 amFlintlocks vs Cartridge Ammunition. I fail to see that the improvement of technology should influence the meaning of a basic right. Those who argue that a single shot flintlock musket or pistol should be protected by the 2nd. Amendment, but not a modern multi-round firearm, are arguing that technology should determine the interpretation of law and not the law itself. This same standard, if so applied to the 1st. Amendment, would be rejected by civil libertarians. Personally, I am more afraid of propaganda than I am of firearms. Very afraid.
As well, the “Special Collective Rights” interpretation is equally disturbing. This purports to place an individual right under the exclusive purview of the state. This same interpretation applied to the 1st. Amendment would render the “Freedom of the Press” to exist only within the power of the state and not the individual at all.
In short, be careful what you wish for in the upcoming SCOTUS review the DC gun laws. Should the screenwriters return to work with registered quill pens? Should the studios agree to be extensions of the state government?
Norris. (46e08e) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:49 amI realize we’re pretty deep into this thread now, and the post is fairly far down the front page, so this comment may be completely ignored. However, I’d like to thank Patterico for elevating my comment to the body of his post in an update– as a long-time reader, occasional commenter, and frequent admirer of your work, Pat, I really appreciate it!
Moving on to substance: there are two problems with the SG brief, one legal and one political. With respect to the legal problem: I recognize that the SG calling for reversal and remand does not necessarily mean that they want the law upheld. However, as noted Second Amendment scholar Dave Hardy writes:
As I wrote in my first post: any “individual rights” reading of the 2A that leaves room, any room at all, for a sweeping ban like D.C.’s, can be fairly criticizes as supporting “individual rights” in name only. The SG could (and should) have said something like this: “We recognize that a flat ban as sweeping as D.C.’s cannot stand under the Second Amendment, and can in no set of circumstances be reconciled with the individual right that amendment protects. For that reason, we urge affirmance of the decision below. However, we also urge the Court to be mindful of more reasonable gun laws, such as restrictions on felon possession, and urge the Court to adopt an appropriate level of scrutiny that will leave such regulations intact while still providing meaningful protection protecting the individual right to keep and bear arms.”
However, that’s not what the SG said. Which leads to the political problem: the Bush Administration is now on record as urging the reversal of a hugely significant decision that can be characterized, without hyperbole, as the most important judicial victory for supporters of the right to bear arms in history. If the Court adopts the SG’s view, it will lead to, if not an outright loss for the gun rights crowd, many more roadblocks in the form of years of additional litigation and expense, right when they were on the cusp of a historic win in the Supreme Court. I am not as tough on the Bush admin’s record on guns as some here are– it was, after all, Bush who signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and the Ashcroft DoJ that announced that the executive branch would revise its policy to adopt an individual rights view of the Second Amendment. But this unfortunately equivocal brief will not help the reputation of the administration, and by extension the GOP, among the gun rights community, which ought to be Republicans’ natural allies.
NYC 3L (8f734b) — 1/15/2008 @ 9:33 amSide note on field artillery: The 1st battle of the Texas revolution was also over a cannon. Go see the “Come and Take It” flag at http://www.tamu.edu/ccbn/dewitt/batgon.htm
Ranten N. Raven (0102f7) — 1/15/2008 @ 9:34 amThere are some people that just shouldn’t have a gun…
Police say surveillance video shows the man shooting himself as he placed the gun in the waistband of his pants. The clerk wasn’t injured.
A short time later, police found 25-year-old Derrick Kosch at a home with a gunshot wound to his right testicle and lower left leg. He was expected to have surgery at a hospital.
http://www.thestarpress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080115/NEWS06/80115021
hazy (d671ab) — 1/15/2008 @ 11:05 amI’m not sure. There was (supposedly) a case in Florida a while ago wherein a felon was arrested for being in possession of a firearm — that he had taken from a non-felon who was mugging him, according to independent witnesses who saw the fight. He did not shoot the mugger; whether he pointed it at the mugger I don’t know either. Who, if anyone, held the mugger at gunpoint while waiting for the cops I don’t know. When the cops eventually arrived, he handed the gun over to them. What happened to either I don’t know. I am very sure it is good not to be mugged, but I do not feel better knowing that the victim in that case was arrested for being a felon in possession.
I don’t see a crime there. He may have been in violation of statutes, court orders, parole rules, and a bunch of other things. He didn’t need to be arrested, or have any legal consequence related to his possession of a firearm.
On the other hand, the mugger, who was not a felon, was in possession with the intent to commit a crime. He should have been arrested for that.
htom (412a17) — 1/15/2008 @ 12:00 pmQuestion: if a non-violent felon has served his prison time (“paid his debt to society”), why should his Second Amendment rights be denied? Because of his non-violent crime, has his right to self-defense been permanently abrogated?
An individual who uses a firearm to commit a crime rightly surrenders his right to possess such a weapon in the future. But I wonder about non-violent felons who have put their transgressions behind them and have gone on to become productive members of society. Are they forever to remain second-class citizens with regard to the Second Amendment?
navyvet (fbe0ce) — 1/15/2008 @ 12:02 pmThere was also a prosecution, although I believe it was overturned on appeal, where a woman with a felony conviction was prosecuted for being in possession of a firearm because she was worked as a model and held a firearm to pose for a photograph.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 12:53 pm69. Yes. There’s an appeal mechanism, but BATF can’t or won’t allow it to be used. Doesn’t even have to be a felony, some misdemeanors disqualify you as well.
htom (412a17) — 1/15/2008 @ 3:09 pmhtom, actually Congress had forbidden the ATF from processing any attempts to have gun possession rights restored.
SPQR (26be8b) — 1/15/2008 @ 3:28 pmIs it “reasonable regulation” to forbid firearms in any house with children in it?
nk (dda711) — 1/15/2008 @ 5:25 pmTHE RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED and if those liberal eletistts cant understand that then they should pack up and leave the nation and never ever come back
krazy kagu (711c87) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:40 pm509th Bob…
Another Drew (8018ee) — 1/15/2008 @ 8:57 pmIndividuals who owned cannon?
Does the name Bannerman mean anything to you?
htom:
I asked:
and you responded:
This is why I don’t like discussing criminal law issues with members of what my friend Alex calls the “anarchist wing of the Libertarian party.”
I asked you a simple and straightforward question and you respond with some tale that, even if we accept its veracity (I don’t, but let’s pretend we do for the sake of argument), proves nothing other than statutes get misused sometimes.
It would be as if I asked you if it’s a good idea to have murder laws, and you responded: “Gee, I don’t know, because this guy was charged with murder once even though he was TOTALLY INNOCENT and everyone knew it!!”
I’ll remind you that most felon in possession cases are very simple: you have some guy who’s a felon, and he’s in possession of a firearm.
Let’s go one step further and pretend we’re restricting it only to people who have committed violent crimes and/or felonies with firearms in the past. Because we’re questioning governmental power, so I’ll ask you to assume a factual scenario in which the policy seems very attractive from a policy standpoint.
Should the government have the ability to do that? (Placing aside silly cases of statutes, which can happen with any statute.)
Let’s see if we can get a simple answer to the question.
Patterico (4bda0b) — 1/15/2008 @ 9:39 pmAnarchist wing of the Libertarian party … cute, but the closest I came to them was being a Goldwater Republican. I’ve now abandoned the whole idea of belonging to political parties (which seem little better than disorganized gangs) and for more than a decade have considered myself to be a follower of Robert Heinlein’s Professor Bernardo de la Paz, and a Rational Anarchist (the link gives most of the key quotes of the fictional professor, and an explanation I somewhat agree with.)
Is is good to arrest a violent felon for having a firearm in his possession? Maybe. Why does he have it? Is it really his, or just a gun that happened to be near him? There’s a part of me that wants to say “yes, it’s a good thing”, but I’ve seen so many damaged by such good intentions — perhaps by very well-meaning people who didn’t intend the bad consequences that followed — that I really can’t. If he’s brandishing it (but that’s a different crime) or selling it (but that’s a different crime) or concealing it (but that’s a different crime) or …. I don’t know California law at all, and am not a lawyer, but I would think that a violent felon attempting evil doing, found with a gun in his possession, could probably be arrested and convicted for a couple of things other than the mere possession; the possession charge is useful in driving a plea, and really hammering someone who hasn’t done anything else you could convict him of.
No. It presumes the guilt of the accused of other unknown (and possibly non-existant) crimes; the gun itself isn’t going to damage anyone.
(BTW, before someone mentions it, my NRA membership comes and goes, depending if I decide to shoot in NRA matches.)
htom (412a17) — 1/15/2008 @ 10:36 pmPatterico,
Your question is straightforward but the answer is not easy. The only other denial of a fundamental right to felons no longer in prison, the right to vote, is specifically authorized by the Fourteenth Amendment. If strict scrutiny is applied to Second Amendment rights, all laws that infringe them will have to further an important governmental interest, both as written and as applied. I think that at a minimum there would have to be a procedure which would allow even a violent felon, after a reasonable passage of time, to prove that he has rehabilitated himself and that his rights should be restored. I don’t think that an invariable, blanket, lifetime attainder could withstand strict scrutiny.
I mentioned the Lautenberg Amendment, earlier. I don’t think that it could withstand even intermediate scrutiny. Project Safe Neighborhoods might but many of its cases would fail under strict scrutiny.
nk (95162d) — 1/16/2008 @ 5:03 amP.S. Not too long ago, in one of the Joe Horn threads, I related the case of an Illinois man who came home from work to find burglars coming out of his house with his property and opened fire on them, wounding two. After he has finished his sentence for aggravated battery with a firearm (twenty-five years minus fifteen percent for good behavior), I, personally, would have no problem with him being armed again.
nk (95162d) — 1/16/2008 @ 6:46 am#59, #62, GaryC, NK – GHWB did vote for the 1968 Gun Control Act. Here, for what it’s worth, is what he said in a 1970 letter to a constituent from “All the Best, George Bush: My Life in Letters and Other Writings,” By George H W Bush, 2000, Simon and Schuster:
“June 4, 1970
Mr. Stephen Melinder
Houston, TX 77024
Dear Mr. Melinder:
Thanks so much for your recent letter concerning gun legislation…
I am opposed to federal registration and licensing of firearms and my voting record is quite clear on that point. I have never been pleased with all the aspects of the Gun Control Act of 1968. I did vote for it, but only because I feel that a state, if it so wishes, should be permitted to control the flow of weapons within its borders and should not be harassed by importation of weapons across state lines.
Frankly, Mr. Melinder, I am extremely concerned about the prevalence of “Saturday Night Specials” in the Houston area. I think the state should review its gun laws very carefully with the idea of cutting down on this type of weapon. I don’t believe this is an area for federal enforcement. Police Chief Herman Short of Houston, one of the best law enforcemnt officers in the country, feels quite strongly that local action is required to solve this problem. I agree….
Yours very truly,
George Bush, M.C.”
As to his point on a state controlling the “importation of weapons across state lines,” remember part of the genesis of the 1968 Act was supposedly Lee Harvey Osward’s purchase of mail order weapons.
Dubium (0a6237) — 1/16/2008 @ 7:19 amThank you, Dubium.
BTW, my opinion is that the genesis of GCA 68 was the desire of white people to keep guns out of the hands of black people.
Just so you don’t think I’m totally insane … gun control is strictest in jurisdictions with large black populations and the bigger the black population the stricter the laws are. You can just check out New York City and Cook County, Illinois and compare them to Vermont and Alaska, for a start.
nk (95162d) — 1/16/2008 @ 8:10 amREGISTER POLITICIANS NOT GUNS
krazy kagu (3e8790) — 1/16/2008 @ 8:10 amA Felons Rights? A felon, who has earned this status by their own actions and duly convicted of such a crime should be lawfully denied the possession of a firearm. Their own behavior has the result of removing them from the protection of their pre-felony 2nd. Amendment rights. The felon has “infringed” himself. Furthermore, and paradoxically, the process of this denial is in itself part of the duty of protecting the 2nd. Amendment from those who have been convicted of abusing the rights of others, and is part and parcel of protecting the entire Constitution. The issue of “restoration of rights” should be moot for firearms.
Children and Firearms in the home? “Forbid”? No. Prescribe, yes. I have no issue with statutes that define the proper safe storage of firearms in a home with children. Such gun manners used to be taught by tradition. My own father was very strict about the storage and handling of his firearms in his home. It’s how children learn. If you forbid firearms you are not only encouraging ignorance, but inadvertently encouraging an ignorant curiosity.
In the end, the issue is not really about “guns”. Gun violence is a symptom, not a disease. From flintlocks to the semi-auto M-1 rifle of World War II, the US did not have a “gun problem”. But we have had a “drug and gun” problem since we began treating the mentally ill different beginning in the mid 60’s. “Going Postal” was inevitable with the passage of the Community Mental Health Centers Act of 1963.
Norris. (e92ba7) — 1/16/2008 @ 8:43 amSorry, Norris, but earned or deserved human rights is not an American idea.
nk (95162d) — 1/16/2008 @ 8:51 amI can only deduce, nk, from your truncated comment quoted above that it relates to my comment: “A felon, who has earned this status by their own unlawful actions..” If so, I fail to see what your issue may be. The felon was in full possession of his rights prior to his own actions. In short, no one held a gun to his head to hold a gun to another’s head. However, upon conviction (due process) a felon should be denied the “right” to posses a firearm, but he/she nevertheless, does not lose the right to self defense. But it’s their problem. One can postulate any number and manner of hypotheticals wherein a felon may be within his natural rights to use a weapon in the lawful protection of life and property. But there must first be a standard to measure his actions as it regards the rights of others. And yes, I am familiar with the works of the European philosophers who influenced the American Founding Fathers.
Norris. (049002) — 1/17/2008 @ 11:00 amnk…while your point is well taken, how would that view, that gun control was partially designed to keep guns out of black hands, be considered in the south, where the black population was just as large, and yet gun control is not…
reff (99666d) — 1/17/2008 @ 11:07 amI’m not saying that I’m entirely right, just not totally insane. I’m looking at correlations.
Also, the black migration from the South to the North in the last half century, the urban riots, the accident of the Black Panthers, and the reaction of northern whites to a relatively sudden and shocking demographic shift. Chicago, for one example, lost a million whites in white flight which were replaced by black people.
I would also throw into the mix that people are people everywhere and that southern white people are no more racist than northern white people and possibly less when it comes to being afraid of their black neighbors after long acquaintenance.
nk (95162d) — 1/17/2008 @ 12:56 pm