[Brenda]

So, would using your Second Amendment right (the right to bear arms) not infringe with the 14th Amendment?
I mean, NO POLITICIAN would be legally able to carry, right?

Second Amendment Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

14th Amendment 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

[CanadianJeff]

Wow. It never amazes me how many people introduce a gun into the home then act amazed when someone gets shot.

[BartSimpson]

Unsound Unsound:

But wouldn't the "well regulated" part of the amendment make it possible to impose certain conditions, like proof of competence, on gun ownership?

No. The Second Amendment is composed of two clauses, a justification clause and an operative clause. The justification clause served as a motivating reason for the Amendment but it was not a limiting reason for the Amendment. It's also important to note that in the context of the time 'well regulated' meant that common people had the right to form citizens militias for the purpose of training and then it is also important to note that 'militia' was a term that applied exclusively to civilians and not military or quasi-military organizations.

Imagine it as applying to something else:

A well regulated marching band being necessary to the success of a Mardi Gras parade, the right of the people to keep and bear musical instruments shall not be infringed.

Would you read this to mean that the first clause is just an example of why musical instruments are neeeded or would you read this to mean that only licensed marching bands can have musical instruments?

It's a justification and it is also important to note that the justification was so citizens would have the ability to stand up to their own government...as they did in the 1776-1783 civil war that resulted in the independence of the former British colonies after they overthrew their previous government by force of arms.

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.

Thus the purpose of this Amendment is so that the people retain the right and ability to overthrow their own government if it becomes necessary. Given that the Constitution enumerates the authority of the government as deriving from the consent of the people the government then has no right to license or restrict the right to keep and bear arms with regards to otherwise law abiding citizens.

The exact same principle of government not being able to license the source of its authority is illustrated in the United Kingdom where Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has neither a driver's licence or a passport and that is because there is no one in her government with the authority to issue her such a document given that she is the source of their authority.

A subordinate does not grant permissions to their superior and the US Government is subordinate to the People.

Hope that clarifies this for you.

[BartSimpson]

Brenda Brenda:

So, would using your Second Amendment right (the right to bear arms) not infringe with the 14th Amendment?
I mean, NO POLITICIAN would be legally able to carry, right?

Second Amendment Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

14th Amendment 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

One reading of this would be that politicians who promote gun controls that violate the Constitution would be in insurrection or rebellion to the Constitution.

Given that two states have now passed laws that nullify unConstitutional acts of the Executive and of Congress within their borders we may well see politicians charged with treason for, say, supporting UN gun control treaties that violate the Constitution.

Interesting times we live in.

[Wada]

THE Problem Solver Revolver

[DrCaleb]

Wada Wada:

THE Problem Solver Revolver

Excellent! Give that to a 5 year old instead! Problem solved.



/sarcasm

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Wada Wada:

THE Problem Solver Revolver

Excellent! Give that to a 5 year old instead! Problem solved.



/sarcasm

I recall when I was five my parents gave me a blue plastic toy Thompson that made a cool machine gun sound when you pulled the trigger. That's the only thing this kid should have had.

[DanSC]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Aren't the people who want voter ID laws passed mostly the same people who think gun ownership can't be limited?

Yes, but the two are not entirely similar, unless a perspective voter would have to pay for the ID required to vote.

Brenda Brenda:

So, would using your Second Amendment right (the right to bear arms) not infringe with the 14th Amendment?
I mean, NO POLITICIAN would be legally able to carry, right?

Second Amendment Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

14th Amendment 14th Amendment:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

I don't know of any legal opinion that would consider a politician carrying a firearm to be insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution of the United States.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Wada Wada:

THE Problem Solver Revolver

Excellent! Give that to a 5 year old instead! Problem solved.



/sarcasm

I recall when I was five my parents gave me a blue plastic toy Thompson that made a cool machine gun sound when you pulled the trigger. That's the only thing this kid should have had.

Mine never gave me toy guns, because they believed guns were not toys. When I was old enough, they taught me how to have respect for a gun and how to use it safely.

[Unsound]

bart, you're starting to sound like a lawyer

Which is fine. I'm, obviously, no constitutional scholar so i'll assume that you're atleast in the neighbourhood of right. No doubt there are other ways to interpret it, but that's up to the courts to figure out I suppose.

The more interesting thing, to me atleast, is your own attitude. The constitution can be changed if enough people are convinced so I'm curious about what kind of restrictions or regulations, if any, you would be willing to support? Would you support amending the constitution(if that's neccesary) to allow for competency testing for a firearms license? Do you have safe storage laws there? Would you support them? Anything I'm missing that you could get behind?

Your thoughts are of interest to me as well, Dan.

[Thanos]

Brenda Brenda:

So, would using your Second Amendment right (the right to bear arms) not infringe with the 14th Amendment?
I mean, NO POLITICIAN would be legally able to carry, right?

At this stage it's best to look at the 2nd Amendment as having trumped all the others, including the 1st. Enough public displaying of firearms, whether by the state or by groups of individuals in these so-called militias, has the express purpose of intimidating opponents into shutting up and not interfering in the social arrangement that the weapon-holder wants. It might be a non-uttered threat but it remains a threat nonetheless.

[DanSC]

In my perfect world (probably naively perfect), perspective gun owners would register in the same way American voters register. At no cost to the person registering, they'd receive a background check and be placed into a database of people allowed to own a gun. From time to time, this registry would be compared to criminal and health records to see if anyone should be removed. An appeals process would exist for anyone removed. Individual guns would not be registered, but owning a gun without being registered would be a crime, just as voting without being registered is.

I'd also have a gun offenders' registry similar to the sex offender's registry. If you commit a crime when a firearm is on your person or in your vehicle, you are removed from the registry of legal gun owners and have to always report where you live to the local authorities. As with sex offenders, the public could access information about any gun offenders living near them.

I think the gun offenders' registry could be done today, but making prospective gun owners register would probably require amending the constitution.

[commanderkai]

Thanos Thanos:

At this stage it's best to look at the 2nd Amendment as having trumped all the others, including the 1st. Enough public displaying of firearms, whether by the state or by groups of individuals in these so-called militias, has the express purpose of intimidating opponents into shutting up and not interfering in the social arrangement that the weapon-holder wants. It might be a non-uttered threat but it remains a threat nonetheless.

Why take it as a threat though? Certainly some may view it as a threat, but others, and certainly the individuals at those rallies, see it as no different than proudly showing their support for their cause non-violently. Really, if we go by this logic, any individual wearing a mask covering their face in leftist rallies/protests are a threat, considering how many past situations where those individuals, concealing their identity, have conducted violence against police and private citizens.

I have never heard a story where these individuals were arrested by police for threatening individuals with their guns, nor they ever turning violent against authorities like law enforcement. Certainly it can be intimidating, but just looking intimidating isn't exactly illegal.

[Thanos]

I don't see where carrying a firearm to a rally or protest against such innocuous things as a new healthcare program can't be seen as a threat. It'd also help the cause and image of the weapon-holders greatly if they didn't automatically descend into their usual insanity about practically everything the government does as being equivalent to the return of the Third Reich. When the batshitters by default become the public face of a movement it's practically impossible to see them as anything else but a threat, not just to the government programs or political policies they oppose but also to the freedoms of those who disagree with them.

[commanderkai]

Thanos Thanos:

I don't see where carrying a firearm to a rally or protest against such innocuous things as a new healthcare program can't be seen as a threat. It'd also help the cause and image of the weapon-holders greatly if they didn't automatically descend into their usual insanity about practically everything the government does as being equivalent to the return of the Third Reich. When the batshitters by default become the public face of a movement it's practically impossible to see them as anything else but a threat, not just to the government programs or political policies they oppose but also to the freedoms of those who disagree with them.

I don't remember carrying them to health care rallies, whenever I see or hear about it on the news here while visiting my parents in Michigan, generally it's to support Second Amendment rights. I'm sure there were cases that it did happen to non-Second Amendment rallies, but I generally try to not tarnish whole groups based on a few dipshits.

And yes, there are dipshits in the Second Amendment rallies that are paranoid fools. But there are also regular people as well. As much as those regular individuals would like to distance themselves from the nutters, it's somewhat impossible, and even the left has shown that to be true (look at the last...hm...12 years of leftist political protests in the US that had Truthers, Bush=Hitler dipshits, and those who turned violent against police and civilians), but as much as there are dipshit assholes, the whole movement shouldn't be painted with a broad brush that even I would label the dipshits with.