PDA

View Full Version : If SCOTUS reads 2nd as allowing local Govt to be able to regulate guns


Squid
08-06-2012, 9:56 AM
just about anyway they want, only allowing someone to keep one in their own home, and maybe transported to and from unloaded and in locked container....

what is to keep local Govts from "not infringing" on other supposedly inviolate rights like those against racial discrimination?

You should only be allowed to free of racial discrimination from the Govt in your own home, or to and from if you are 'secured'. Other than that, local Govt should be able to pass and enforce pretty much any law it wants.

If they can ban guns on school grounds or public parks in spite of 2nd, why shouldn't they be allowed to ban certain races?

What about "cruel and unusual" punishment? Should that also only apply within your own home if some local Govt dreams up a reason for needing to torture people outside their homes?


PS-Isn't "infringed" about as strong a wording as it gets? To me "infringed" would cover not just keeping the guns, but any activity normally associated with using guns and keeping them ready to go etc. Example: If I'm storing a lot of gun powder and it makes my neighbors nervous or they have a day care center or something, my gun related activity would be "protected class" but their day care wouldn't be. IIRC a "church" is exempt from zoning laws.

OleCuss
08-06-2012, 10:21 AM
Based on Heller and McDonald, local government can, indeed, regulate manner and place of carry.

But when a substantial burden on the RKBA occurs, it looks like there will be some fairly significant legal tests the local government will have to meet in order to justify the regulation.

It is unlikely that the courts will find the RKBA to be as expansive as written by the Constitution, but it will be a lot better than it currently is in California.

Eternal vigilance and political activism will be essential to maintain any liberty.

Squid
08-06-2012, 10:48 AM
" unlikely that the courts will find the RKBA to be as expansive as written by the Constitution"

My point exactly, and how can courts find other than "as written by the Constitution".


If people are uncomfortable with "not infringed" they should need to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.

It took an amendment for prohibition and another to end it, and another for women to vote (maybe that wasn't such good idea).

If people say "this isn't 1800 any more and 'arms' aren't the same and Americans today generally don't need protection from wild animals".....or.....

The "Militia" of today isn't a bunch of local yokels taking the old blunder buss off the fireplace mantel and forming up in the village square, it is all about satellites and stuff"......


then fine, maybe the 2nd should be 'reworked'.


PS-wouldn't all these "Arab Spring" revolutions against their supposedly bad Govt be the PERFECT example of why a Free People should always have not just peashooters but at the very least "heavy infantry" weapons like bazookas, RPGs, mortars, heavy machine guns, land mines and grenades?

Sorta like in Switzerland or Norway where IIRC they also have various "heavy infantry" weapons hidden away and only certain dispersed "elders" know the locations so disarming the population is basically impossible.

vantec08
08-06-2012, 10:50 AM
Yes, local/state governments will be tampering with 2nd until there is a final b_____ slapping down by SCOTUS which isnt likely, given the politicized nature of it anymore. Only other thing that will work is a massive rejection of liberalism nationwide, which also isnt likely given that many would have to surrender their little piece of the treasury, and Uncle Sugar would return to being limited government. I dont think its reversible.

dfletcher
08-06-2012, 10:50 AM
The aspect of the 2nd Amendment court cases I don't understand is the "so long as it's not entirely prohibited the right has not been infringed" approach and that seems contrary to how other rights are viewed.

For example, let's say I wrote and distributed three leaflets. Would the court allow that my 1st Amendment rights were not abridged if I were allowed to write and distribute only one? As a reader, could I be allowed only one magazine, one newspaper? If I owned 2 homes can I be secure in only one and have the 4th satisfied?

Obviously I'm no lawyer, but why is the approach that if the core right is allowed all else can be prohibited in play?

Dantedamean
08-06-2012, 11:01 AM
Unfortunately when the government wants to do something they will figure out a way to do it, constitution or not. I believe that guns should be available to anyone and everyone, as many people do. However until we decide to tell the government what they are allowed to do, and not the other way around, that dream will never become a reality.

bandook
08-06-2012, 11:34 AM
just about anyway they want, only allowing someone to keep one in their own home, and maybe transported to and from unloaded and in locked container....

what is to keep local Govts from "not infringing" on other supposedly inviolate rights like those against racial discrimination?

You should only be allowed to free of racial discrimination from the Govt in your own home, or to and from if you are 'secured'. Other than that, local Govt should be able to pass and enforce pretty much any law it wants.

If they can ban guns on school grounds or public parks in spite of 2nd, why shouldn't they be allowed to ban certain races?

What about "cruel and unusual" punishment? Should that also only apply within your own home if some local Govt dreams up a reason for needing to torture people outside their homes?


PS-Isn't "infringed" about as strong a wording as it gets? To me "infringed" would cover not just keeping the guns, but any activity normally associated with using guns and keeping them ready to go etc. Example: If I'm storing a lot of gun powder and it makes my neighbors nervous or they have a day care center or something, my gun related activity would be "protected class" but their day care wouldn't be. IIRC a "church" is exempt from zoning laws.

SCOTUS has the final word. If they say that a certain restriction is valid, then the question of 'shall not be infringed' has been settled. You may not like it, but it is settled.

Regarding the other points:
Churches are NOT exempt from Zoning Laws. You're probably confusing a law passed in 2000 (or so) that prohibited ADDITIONAL Zoning restrictions specifically target towards churches or housed of worship.

Regarding banning certain races from schools etc, do you really need to look that far into our history to see if how well the constitution is really followed.

The 14th amendment basically barred discrimination in 1868.
'All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'

100 years after the ratification of that amendment, Martin Luther King Jr was assassinated.

Take what you want from the above, but it took over 100 years after the constitutional amendment to get a general agreement that racial discrimination is not OK - and it took the assassination of a clergyman to get congress off its butt and actually provide teeth to Civil Rights.

Squid
08-06-2012, 12:29 PM
anything can ever be "equal".

Does the school lunch lady put a big pot in the center of the cafeteria and let the kids fight over the food or does she dole out equal amounts to each kid?

Prior to the 1950s, Blacks in the USA enjoyed at the very least the 2nd best funded public schools in the entire world, and if a Negro school was "2nd best funded" it was a very close 2nd.

Ditto with public parks, bathrooms and, yes, drinking fountains.

While not directly linked to "separate but equal" funding issues, the reason public education was destroyed was (except for well promoted initial entry under guard by army troops) that the forced integration was done with a lot of politicization of "us vs them" and Black students in formerly White schools would gain status by being the "bad boys" or "thugs".

In formerly all Black segregated schools status was by academics and no one (like Black parents of other kids) was standing for any nonsense from any "disadvantaged youth" and letting them run wild in school.


Today in public schools, unlimited resources are spent on everyone but kids who are there to learn.

OleCuss
08-06-2012, 1:14 PM
Not sure I really buy your analysis.

And as it turns out, much of "Black" culture is actually adopted from the slave masters who were heavily influenced by northern British culture.

Anyway, many public schools are shameless heaps of low expectations and warehousing of incompetent teachers. Kids of all skin colors and backgrounds are being failed in a nearly definitive fashion. You have to have a motivated family which will pretty much oppose the educational system in order to get well-educated kids.

And no, I'm not trying to malign teachers. Some of them are brilliant. But on average, the Education/Liberal Arts majors are the dumbest on almost any college campus.

navyinrwanda
08-07-2012, 7:52 AM
" unlikely that the courts will find the RKBA to be as expansive as written by the Constitution"

My point exactly, and how can courts find other than "as written by the Constitution".


If people are uncomfortable with "not infringed" they should need to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION.
The text of the Second Amendment is commonly misunderstood to read “...the keeping and bearing of arms by the people shall not be infringed.”

Of course, that's not actually how it's written. The exact text is “...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The insertion of the word “right” makes all of the difference, because the right is whatever the people understood it to be when it was ratified as an amendment to the constitution. That's why courts — as directed by Heller — look to history to determine the precise contours of the right.

While guns are obviously more heavily regulated today than they were in the late 18th Century, the right at the founding was not unlimited. And that's why state and local governments will always be able to regulate guns. Our fight is twofold: first, to make sure that gun (and armed self-defense) rights get treated like other constitutional rights; and secondly, to force governments to justify gun regulations with actual evidence that restrictions directly mitigate negative externalities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_externalities).

IVC
08-07-2012, 8:26 AM
It is unlikely that the courts will find the RKBA to be as expansive as written by the Constitution, but it will be a lot better than it currently is in California.

To clarify the point, the courts WILL find the RKBA to be as expansive as originally written, but the limits that are allowed WITHOUT being an infringement will have changed.

Civil rights are limited by others' civil rights - that's not an infringement. The modern society has more intertwined interests that must be reconciled in order to determine the practical boundaries of the RKBA.

For example, shooting in the air, dueling, brandishing, threatening and alike will never be allowed. Safe and responsible possession and carrying, on the other hand, are protected. Licensing and training requirements are also not an infringement as long as they are routinely available and without hidden agendas.

Squid
08-08-2012, 8:16 AM
unlimited "arms".

So what restrictions on "arms" existed back then?

Wasn't it a bunch of guys arming themselves then presenting themselves to Govt as a "Milita" ready for service? Is that what these "Milita Groups" are mimicking today, and there reasoning is "if we are training our selves as a milita(as opposed to just some guy hoarding guns) then we got same rights to bear arms as militia of 1790"?

I vaguely remember seeing some olden sailing ship's documentation and materials list and it included 3 small cannon and it was a privately owned ship.

Wasn't it pretty much 100% "wide open" as far as private citizens owning cannon, especially on the frontier? Weren't their also private 'forts', etc?

randian
08-08-2012, 4:38 PM
The aspect of the 2nd Amendment court cases I don't understand is the "so long as it's not entirely prohibited the right has not been infringed" approach and that seems contrary to how other rights are viewed.
Property rights are viewed the same way. Numerous court cases have held that a less than total taking need not be compensated. So if a new rule or regulation, or administrative action, destroys the value of your land (the most common case of this kind), but not to zero, government doesn't have to pay up. The logic is exactly the same as the gun cases you refer to.