In gun rights battle, freedom also has restrictions

[SecularMotion]

Curiously, however, late 19th century Kansans interpreted that language rather loosely. Dodge City, Wichita, and Abilene openly restricted firearms possession, and in 1905 the Kansas Supreme Court upheld a Salina gun control law by finding no individual right to carry a weapon.

“It was the safety and security of society that was being considered when this provision was put into our constitution,” the court ruled.

Winds blow and laws change, of course. In 2010, Kansas voters amended their constitution to more firmly create an individual right to bear arms, and the same year the U.S. Supreme Court said the U.S. Constitution contains a similar guarantee.

But conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, made a crucial point: “No fundamental right — not even the First Amendment — is absolute,” he wrote.

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/10/19/3868101/commentary-in-gun-rights-battle.html#storylink=cpy

[rrneck]

1. Good idea!

Let's regulate how people look. That always works out so well. Yep, legislating a scarlet letter will get you elected every time.

Do people actually get paid to write this bullshit?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

4. IMHO...

...writers frequently only get paid to write bullshit. One CEO I've worked for was best described in, "The only thing Geoff hates more than a 'yes man' is someone who doesn't agree with him."

Or as dear departed George put into words the ideas of employees everywhere, "Hi gang. Scott Lame here. The Boss jock with the Boss sound from the Boss list of the Boss 30 that my Boss told me to play."

[joycejnr]

2. High Cost of Willfully Misinterpreting the 2nd Amendment

From Bradblog:

Ignoring text, history and precedent

The Second Amendment states [emphasis added]: "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."

Stevens excoriated the majority for treating the preamble of the Second Amendment relating to a "well regulated militia" as if it were mere surplusage. "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect." Marbury v. Madison (1803).

The first two clauses, "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" inform the meaning of the words "the people" in the third clause, Stevens proclaimed.

(At the time the Second Amendment was passed, Boston, Philadelphia and New York had all placed restrictions on firing guns within city limits and had regulated 'the storage of gunpowder, a necessary component of an operational fire arm.')
Stevens insisted that neither historical evidence nor the context of the language, taken as a whole, supports the conclusion that the Second Amendment was intended to secure to civilians the right to "keep and bear" arms for personal use. Indeed, he observed, quoting from the Oxford English dictionary, the words "bear arms" means "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight."

Justice Stephen Breyer, in a separate dissent, added weight to the argument that the Second Amendment was never intended to prevent legislatures from passing gun control legislation "of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime." He pointed out that, at the time the Second Amendment was passed, Boston, Philadelphia and New York had all placed restrictions on firing guns within city limits and had regulated "the storage of gunpowder, a necessary component of an operational fire arm."
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=9424

[Clames]

3. Brady Campaign? Snork.

If that is the extent of your opinions on this topic then you really have a lot to learn.

[glacierbay]

5. So true

how many times does that shit have to be discredited? The Brady's have been assigned to the dump of gun control history but every now and then, we get someone dredging up that nonsense.
Good Grief.

[SecularMotion]

6. Where do you get "Brady Campaign" from?

If you're reading Bradblog as Brady, it's no wonder you misinterpret the 2nd amendment.

[glacierbay]

8. I'm reading it as the same old tired talking points

as the Brady org., VPC, etc.. This is almost word for word from those groups.

[Clames]

16. Because that nonsense had been cross posted there...

...as well as been posted here on DU before too. Guess your memory isn't very good (which explains why you keep hawking that misinterpretation of the 2A balognie). Must really rustle your jimmies to have SCOTUS shut you anti-gunners down like they did.

[sling438]

7. Heller opinion

I agree that legislatures should be able to pass gun control legislation. I don't agree that this includes a ban on handguns, though. The Heller opinion, regardless of what you think of Justice Scalia allows for strict limits (CCW, Assault Weapons, Background checks) while granting the right to keep a handgun in your residence.

IMHO, this takes the wind out of the sails of the NRA's (and I'm actually a member) argument that liberals want to "take guns away". Pure malarkey!!!

[PavePusher]

10. Actualy, I don't think you understand Heller at all.

Firstly, it doesn't "grant" anything. It re-affirms a clearly recognized Right enumerated in our national Constitution.

Secondly, please cite to the part that "allows for strict limits". I think you're reading something incorrectly.

[sling438]

17. Quoted from the opinion itself. Looks like strict limits to me

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

[PavePusher]

18. That says nothing about "strict limits" and very little about scope.

What it does say is that the field will have to be examined.

[Eleanors38]

11. Heller dealt with the issue at hand, not other gun-control

Issues. It did NOT affirm the costitutionality of other measures, it limited its purview. Re-read the language.

[PavePusher]

9. Please explain how the prefatory clause is a limit on the operative clause.

Use any rules of grammar you think appropriate.

Then you can cite to history, legal precedent, and the intent of the authors of the Amendment.

We'll wait....

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. An explanation:

"...a 5-4 decision that ignored precedent, history and basic rules of constitutional interpretation."

"It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect.":

Holding this opinion does not equate to the imperative: "Every clause within the constitution has effect." After the Revolution, some people and some localities still identified as having British roots and ties. It was a firm conviction that due to numerous people risking their lives and many having died, spending their fortunes and investing their current and future efforts in building America into a nation comparable to its former British domain, that a militia is the only way to effect the continued protection and security of America while also restraining the natural tendency for a standing army to become an army of occupation. For this reason, while concurrently acknowledging the individual RKBA, the 2A also explicitly protects the nature of a civilian militia from government interference.

Stevens insisted that neither historical evidence nor the context of the language, taken as a whole, supports the conclusion that the Second Amendment was intended to secure to civilians the right to "keep and bear" arms for personal use.:

Neither did he assert nor did he prove that there is no civilian right to "keep and bear" arms for personal use.

"...basic rules of constitutional interpretation.":

Such basic rules of interpretation as In pari materia comport with the language of the preamble and articles of the Bill of Rights to show the 2A enumerates an individual right.

The rights of the people will, in the long run, be preserved by whatever means required.

Accepting the application of this admonition from Winston Churchill to basic human rights seems most wise:
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

[GreenStormCloud]

13. That horse is dead. You can quite beating it. N/T

[PavePusher]

19. Please explain how that preamble is, through rules of grammer, a limiting condition on the Right.

The first two clauses, "well regulated Militia" and "security of a free State" inform the meaning of the words "the people" in the third clause, Stevens proclaimed.

Only if he's reinventing English grammar.


Then you can cite to historical and legal precedent that supports your apparent assertion.

Stevens is, of course, rather wrong on this. He's been deconstructed on that many times.


As for Breyer....

"of great public importance, namely, saving lives, preventing injury, and reducing crime."

All of which gun control has empirically failed to accomplish. Firing of guns is entirely different than "keep and bear".

[ileus]

14. That's why we have to fight for basic human rights and not rely on the 2A.

Many want to destroy the 2 A but this is much deeper that owning a firearm. It's all about protecting your life, that of your loved ones and your hard earned assets. Never give these people an inch...they'll take a mile.

[spin]

15. True. There were strong control laws in towns like Tombstone but they were rarely enforced. ...

IN DEFENSE OF THE OUTLAWS
Part 1
by Joyce Aros

What about our outlaws? Were they a really bad bunch of men that terrorized the town of Tombstone and every community for miles around, as well as threatened the safety of every lawman in the district? The way the movies and some of the books written about this area show them, one would think even Geronimo and Cochise felt the need to run for their lives. Many writers describe them as scruffy, bummy characters who just hung out in saloons day and night; that is, when they were not killing Mexicans.

***snip***

Ike has a record of being in at least one other confrontation with a fellow gambler in Tombstone. Seems they had a falling out over whatever too sauced card players fall out over and it came to blows. Ike headed out to get a gun and do the job right and so did the other guy. They walked toward each other with full intent of a shoot-out, but Virgil Earp came between them and put a stop to the whole thing. Ike didn't show any cowardice there from my point of view. And during his disagreement with Doc Holliday the day before the O.K. Corral shoot-out, he seemed willing enough to fight it out if he could get his hands on a gun. Holliday was fully armed though, despite the prohibition against arms in town, and that's a long time mystery. Virgil Earp was in on that argument and didn't arrest Doc for brandishing a weapon nor take it away from him. Can you blame Ike for thinking that there was little reason to respect the Law in that town? Consider the night before card game at the Occidental saloon. Virgil Earp played cards most of the night with Ike, Johnny Behan, Tom McLaury, and maybe even Wyatt, Morgan, and Doc Holliday and kept his six-shooter in full view as intimidation even though Ike had NO GUN! Something seems to smell bad here regarding the attitude of the Earp men. What was the reason for such a move? And don't forget that Doc still had his weapon on him. When Ike went looking for the Earps in the morning, drinking along the way, he was brandishing a Winchester rifle and a six-gun. The Earps had to know that Ike was full of whiskey and braggadocio, and though armed, posed little real threat. Consider how the Earps later made such an issue of the cowboys being armed and yet, when MAYOR CLUM ran into Ike on Fourth and Fremont he joked with him and showed no concern for Ike's weapons, which goes to show how little real enforcement there was in the town even under the Earp's supervision. Why didn't Mayor Clum, a staunch Earp supporter, run to the Earps to warn them of Ike's armed behavior? Makes one wonder how much the Earps exaggerated the situation to make themselves look threatened....emphasis added
http://www.tombstonetimes.com/stories/outlaws01.html

[Atypical Liberal]

20. No one disputes that the second amendment is not absolute.

"The same logic applies to gun rights. There is an individual right to own and carry a weapon, but it isn’t absolute."

I don't think you will find very many people who say that the right to keep and bear arms is absolute, in spite of the fact that the Constitution says that the right shall not be infringed.

But before you can discuss what kinds of restrictions are valid, first you have to agree on what the purpose of the second amendment is.

If the purpose of the second amendment is to hold super-soaker parties, than logically a valid restriction would be that all firearms can only squirt water. But that obviously isn't the intent.

The second amendment is about making sure that the people can keep and bear arms suitable for military use, so that the people can serve as soldiers in an emergency.

Any discussion about restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms cannot compromise that intent.

People like to try and side-step this by claiming that the second amendment is antiquated, or that the people lack the willingness or ability to serve as soldiers anymore. All of this is irrelevant. The law states that the people shall have the right to do it if they desire.

"So here’s an idea: Cities worried about open weapons should require loaded gun-carriers to use holsters the public can clearly see. I’m thinking holsters dyed in blaze orange or fluorescent yellow.

Brightly-colored holsters would allow the public to immediately know, at a safe distance, who’s carrying a loaded weapon. And gun rights advocates couldn’t object, because their weapons aren’t meant to be concealed. The color of the holster wouldn’t affect the weapon’s operation, and Kansas law already requires deer hunters to wear orange. For safety.

Sounds like a plan the burghers in Dodge City might recognize, and the rest of Kansas, too."

So what would this accomplish, exactly? Do you think criminals are going to comply with this? Or will they just continue to stick their firearms in their pockets and waistbands and call it good? One of the per-requisites for crime is getting away with it. This necessitates stealth.

All brightly-colored holsters are going to do is point out the people around you that are almost certainly not going to be involved in any kind of crime.