7x57
01-19-2009, 05:37 PM
Here are some tests I wish were applied to gun-control legislation, federal post-Heller and state post-incorporation. I think they give operational meaning to the Right of Self Defense:
(1) The 1776 test: the 2A forbids any legislation that would have handicapped the continental army or the militias.
Now, I actually think that construed properly that's sufficient, but since this is the courts we're talking about we'd better have a second one:
(2) The KKK test: the 2A forbids any legislation that would have decreased the ability of citizens (mostly black, but why write a racist law and exclude anyone who needs protection?) to protect themselves during segregation from official tyranny, neglect, or private oppression (read as: the KKK).
One concrete example: I think what follows from the above entirely inverts our current system of ownership. Currently, criminals have guns and the government has no idea where they are. Citizens' guns are registered (I know, I know, but the background checks function as de-facto registration, so they *are* registration). That conflicts with both--we don't want either general Gage *or* the local sheriff (who, after all, is sometimes KKK himself) to know where the guns are. But an ex-criminal--doesn't he have a right to self-defense? Yes, but the state also has an interest in what he does with it, at least if he's been convicted of a violent crime. Even a lot of gunnies are happy that he can't buy a gun--but that's inconsistent, because we already know he can get one illegally if he wants it. The only person this prevents from owning a gun is someone who *wants* to go straight. Further, I doubt he's made the best friends in his former life, so there's every chance he needs it, but making him choose between safety and legality pushes him back to crime.
So let him buy a gun. Let him buy several guns: but, as a special law for felons who have given up their normal 2A rights, they are registered to him, and a fired bullet from each is on file. Require a class that outlines the expected behavior. For all I care, make him go talk to a parole officer once a month, if that makes someone feel better. So long as he behaves with it, he can defend himself within the law. If he misbehaves, we can check to see if the bullets at a crime scene, say, were fired from any gun registered to a felon.
Yes, this is only a stupid felon trap, since if he wishes to break the law he'll get another gun unless he's an idiot, but oh well.
Of course, it won't happen. So what do we learn from that exercise? Just what we already knew: that the laws we have treat citizens in a way fit only for felons, and do nothing particularly useful.
7x57
(1) The 1776 test: the 2A forbids any legislation that would have handicapped the continental army or the militias.
Now, I actually think that construed properly that's sufficient, but since this is the courts we're talking about we'd better have a second one:
(2) The KKK test: the 2A forbids any legislation that would have decreased the ability of citizens (mostly black, but why write a racist law and exclude anyone who needs protection?) to protect themselves during segregation from official tyranny, neglect, or private oppression (read as: the KKK).
One concrete example: I think what follows from the above entirely inverts our current system of ownership. Currently, criminals have guns and the government has no idea where they are. Citizens' guns are registered (I know, I know, but the background checks function as de-facto registration, so they *are* registration). That conflicts with both--we don't want either general Gage *or* the local sheriff (who, after all, is sometimes KKK himself) to know where the guns are. But an ex-criminal--doesn't he have a right to self-defense? Yes, but the state also has an interest in what he does with it, at least if he's been convicted of a violent crime. Even a lot of gunnies are happy that he can't buy a gun--but that's inconsistent, because we already know he can get one illegally if he wants it. The only person this prevents from owning a gun is someone who *wants* to go straight. Further, I doubt he's made the best friends in his former life, so there's every chance he needs it, but making him choose between safety and legality pushes him back to crime.
So let him buy a gun. Let him buy several guns: but, as a special law for felons who have given up their normal 2A rights, they are registered to him, and a fired bullet from each is on file. Require a class that outlines the expected behavior. For all I care, make him go talk to a parole officer once a month, if that makes someone feel better. So long as he behaves with it, he can defend himself within the law. If he misbehaves, we can check to see if the bullets at a crime scene, say, were fired from any gun registered to a felon.
Yes, this is only a stupid felon trap, since if he wishes to break the law he'll get another gun unless he's an idiot, but oh well.
Of course, it won't happen. So what do we learn from that exercise? Just what we already knew: that the laws we have treat citizens in a way fit only for felons, and do nothing particularly useful.
7x57