PDA

View Full Version : Civil rights, privileges, and reasonable restrictions


Swiss
01-03-2013, 8:07 AM
I'm engaged in a gun control debate with someone who thinks we should license all gun owners. I'm aware that the 2nd is an inalienable right, that licensing a right is un-Constitutional, and that we do permit reasonable restrictions.

I would appreciate some scholarly/legalese commentary on this, particularly on the limits of reasonable restrictions. What are the legal barriers to licensing gun ownership?

LoneYote
01-03-2013, 8:21 AM
Scholarly information winning people over? Seems like you have your work cut out for you.

Swiss
01-03-2013, 8:33 AM
I'm just looking for something more substantive than explaining what an inalienable right is and a blanket statement that licensing such would far exceed the definition of reasonable restrictions.

M. D. Van Norman
01-03-2013, 8:38 AM
Here is my take.

Reasonable Gun Control (http://mdvannorman.blogspot.com/2012/12/reasonable-gun-control.html)

berto
01-03-2013, 8:39 AM
We don't know what restrictions are reasonable, we can only make an educated guess. Scalia left room in Heller for any manner of things that SCOTUS will have to decide at a future date.

You might consider that LTC is a license and that various state schemes requiring a license of sorts all ready exist. See NY permits and others.

Not very helpful but something the other side might throw at you.

Bobio
01-03-2013, 8:44 AM
Gotta have a license to drive a car.

bridgeport
01-03-2013, 8:44 AM
Gun rights are civil rights, and civil rights should always be expanded, not decreased.

wecf
01-03-2013, 8:47 AM
Gotta have a license to drive a car.

Driving a car is a privilege not a right, not the same thing.

Swiss
01-03-2013, 8:53 AM
LTC is part of the debate. The gun control advocate claims this opens the door to full licensure of ownership, I say it's a reasonable restriction meant to ensure public safety and does not (or should not) prevent bearing arms in public, which is quite different than a license to possess.

Swiss
01-03-2013, 8:55 AM
MD Van Norman, thanks it looks interesting. Will review fully when I get in front of a PC.

ap3572001
01-03-2013, 9:03 AM
reasonable restrictions...... It can get interesting.:)

I had many talks on this subject with people I know who live in different parts of the country.

You see, gun owners are not all the same. (Just like drivers, golf players, fisherman and people in general).

Some people I talk to , are very happy that they are able to carry their little 38 spl revolvers and Glock 26's with their CCW in the city and state where they live.

They REALLY don't care about 50BMG rifle ban , magazine ban , AW ban etc.

I also talk to people who care about AK's , AR's, FN's, HK 91/93 etc.

Many of them DO NOT even have a CCW. Those people DO CARE about AW ban , magazine ban etc.

I also have few friends that LOVE to hunt. To THEM any new restrictions on hunting is a BIG DEAL.

They could care less about owning an AK.

reasonable restrictions.....FOR WHOM?

We ALREADY have MANY restrictions. We already have plenty of gun control.

That is MY opinion.

But because gun owners are ALL different , they may have different opinions on this subject.

berto
01-03-2013, 9:35 AM
LTC is part of the debate. The gun control advocate claims this opens the door to full licensure of ownership, I say it's a reasonable restriction meant to ensure public safety and does not (or should not) prevent bearing arms in public, which is quite different than a license to possess.

See the NY model:

http://www.troopers.ny.gov/firearms/

The licensing forms are for possession.

donw
01-03-2013, 9:42 AM
reasonable to whom and who's is to be restricted? ours or theirs?

speedrrracer
01-03-2013, 9:44 AM
Here is my take.

Reasonable Gun Control (http://mdvannorman.blogspot.com/2012/12/reasonable-gun-control.html)

That's some well-done ****.

Two thumbs up! :clap:

SamsDX
01-03-2013, 9:56 AM
I would appreciate some scholarly/legalese commentary on this, particularly on the limits of reasonable restrictions. What are the legal barriers to licensing gun ownership?

Eugene Volokh's law review article (56 UCLA Law Review 1443 (2009)) is illuminating, and even includes a short discussion on the possible Constitutionality of an assault weapons ban. He discusses the various approaches a court could take with respect to the Second Amendment, and which level of scrutiny would be applied. If you want a PDF copy of the article, PM me. (It shouldn't be difficult to find online once you search for the citation).

I'm of the opinion (however legally unfounded it may be) that the right to keep and bear arms, being a fundamental right, any subordinate laws relating to that right is always subject to strict scrutiny. So, I would say your debate opponents are asking the wrong question from the outset. It's not a question of what is a "reasonable" restriction. It's a question of whether any proposed legislation is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest in the least restrictive way possible.

What your opponents are suggesting is simply the rational basis test.

No Court has made a decision on which specific level of scrutiny to apply, but Heller suggests that it's something more than rational basis, and probably something less than strict. It may not be the traditional "intermediate" scrutiny which asks is the law "substantially related to an important government interest?" but something different still.

All the political grandstanding we're hearing on both sides of the issue aside, it's the judicial system that is ultimately going to be the final arbiter of constitutionality with any of these new laws. In theory anyway, as they would approach any other legal dispute, a court is going to draw from precedent to determine what the right analytic framework is, consider the evidence presented in light of that framework, and come to a conclusion.

I recognize the importance of winning the "hearts and minds," but I'm not sure how far arguing the legal scholarship will get you. Only time will tell how the Supreme Court will (if they do at all) decide. At any rate, their side probably has as high a regard for Professor Volokh as I do for the cooked statistics from the Violence Policy Center.

ExtremeX
01-03-2013, 10:08 AM
Driving a car is a privilege not a right, not the same thing.

+1 :oji:

Librarian
01-03-2013, 10:12 AM
Gotta have a license to drive a car.

On public roads.

Don't need a license to buy or own a car.

Driver license is much closer to LTC.

And note the result of licensed drivers in their registered vehicles: 2010, United States
Unintentional MV Traffic, Occupant Deaths and Rates per 100,000
All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
ICD-10 Codes: V30-V39 (.4-.9),V40-V49 (.4-.9),V50-V59 (.4-.9),V60-V69 (.4-.9), V70-V79 (.4-.9),V83-V86 (.0-.3)


Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
Deaths Population Rate Rate**

10,246 308,745,538 3.32 3.25

Unintentional MV-Occupant Nonfatal Injuries and Rates per 100,000
2010, United States All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
Disposition: All Cases

Number of Crude Age-Adjusted
injuries Population Rate Rate**

2,764,332 308,745,538 895.34 899.25

warbird
01-03-2013, 10:19 AM
how about we do what the Swiss and the Israeli's do? Mandatory military service or at the very least gun classes in high school so that even if a person hates guns they will at least know the proper way to handle one if they ever come across one unattended. Boy, I bet that would make the anti-gun people go nuts wouldn't it if their children found out there is nothing to fear if handled properly. the scary thing to me is how many people pass the california gun test who have never handled a gun, buy a gun, get it and never use it until they have to and are totally untrained in it's use, storage, and the consquences of shooting a gun. we need more training and not more rstrictions.

IVC
01-03-2013, 11:31 AM
The easiest way to frame a "what's reasonable discussion" is to borrow the language from the "strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)" analysis which generally applies to civil rights (there are some questions with respect to 2A, but that's another story).

To be reasonable a policy/law must address (1) a compelling government interest; (2) it must be narrowly tailored and (3) must be the least restrictive way of achieving the goal.

The key is the requirement (3), which requires the policy or restriction to be *effective* and *provably so*. If it's not, a less restrictive policy is to do nothing, thus making the policy in question an infringement.

For example, an AWB serves a compelling interest (reducing gun violence), it is narrowly tailored (bans only specific sporting rifles), but it's NOT the least restrictive (1994-2004 proved it doesn't work). Similarly, any policy that one claims is "reasonable" has to achieve what it claims to achieve, or it must be stricken down.

A-J
01-03-2013, 11:43 AM
The easiest way to frame a "what's reasonable discussion" is to borrow the language from the "strict scrutiny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny)" analysis which generally applies to civil rights (there are some questions with respect to 2A, but that's another story).

To be reasonable a policy/law must address (1) a compelling government interest; (2) it must be narrowly tailored and (3) must be the least restrictive way of achieving the goal.

The key is the requirement (3), which requires the policy or restriction to be *effective* and *provably so*. If it's not, a less restrictive policy is to do nothing, thus making the policy in question an infringement.

For example, an AWB serves a compelling interest (reducing gun violence), it is narrowly tailored (bans only specific sporting rifles), but it's NOT the least restrictive (1994-2004 proved it doesn't work). Similarly, any policy that one claims is "reasonable" has to achieve what it claims to achieve, or it must be stricken down.

he only complling goveernment interest an AWB serves is t oreduce the number of effective weapons in the hands of the people who would stand up to a tyrannical government. It has been proven, quite thoroughly, and by agencies not on the pro-gun side, that the 94 AWB had no measurable effect on "gun violence". And since it also bans *across the board* magazine capacity it fails the "narrowly tailored" requirement. I have not seen any proof that existing restrictions have stopped criminals from getting guns, so it should also fail the 3rd test as well.

stix213
01-03-2013, 11:49 AM
While I don't want one, I believe a "shall issue" licensing scheme to even own a firearm would survive a constitutional test.

IVC
01-03-2013, 11:50 AM
he only complling goveernment interest an AWB serves is t oreduce the number of effective weapons in the hands of the people who would stand up to a tyrannical government.

Yes the overall ban fails, but the "compelling government interest" is not applied the way you suggest. The government merely has to *declare* what they are trying to achieve, so in the terms of analysis, the compelling government interest is "to reduce gun violence" which passes the muster.

In order to say that there is no compelling interest, you would have to argue that the *desire* to reduce gun violence is not in the interest of the society, which is incorrect. The failure of the argument is later, when the government has to prove that it works in achieving the *stated* "compelling interest," which they couldn't.

Swiss
01-03-2013, 11:54 AM
What would the government's compelling interest be in licensing possession of firearms (shall issue as in NYC and IL)?

Kukuforguns
01-03-2013, 12:04 PM
If the issue you are discussing is why requiring a license to own a gun is not constitutional, you should do some research regarding poll taxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(United_States)), and permits for marches/demonstrations (http://www.lectlaw.com/files/con10.htm). The links I've included only scratch the surface.

mt4design
01-03-2013, 12:10 PM
Reasonable restrictions upon an inalienable right...

First, did you know there was a Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Restrictions should not be placed upon inalienable rights but rather upon the states and government in order to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers".

But, I digress...and instead of directing you to the Second Amendment, I would ask this;

What reasonable restrictions are there on speech?

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. That is reasonable.

Is a ban on speech reasonable?

What reasonable restrictions are there on religion? Is a ban on religious freedom reasonable?

Actually, the government is moving quickly to destroy religion, banning the show of some religious symbols while promoting the showing of others and pushing certain churches to support things like birth control and even funding abortion. The inalienable right to the free exercise thereof is under fire.

My belief is that God or your Creator is a hindrance to their desire to kill the Constitution all together. If they can kill God, then we have no such thing as inalienable rights only those which the government grants to us.

What reasonable restrictions are there to the right of the people to peacefully assemble?

Is a ban on such assembly reasonable?

I say no but that is exactly what the government is doing when they disallow protests here at summits like NATO, economic summits, or POLITICAL CONVENTIONS, etc.

What about the Fourth Amendment?

Is it right for law enforcement to conduct a body cavity search of two women during a road side stop (http://www.examiner.com/article/two-women-sue-texas-dept-of-public-safety-over-body-cavity-search)? Or for private conversations to be put under surveillance without a warrant? Or for hard drives to be seized without a warrant?

Our government is already well underway in completely destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I believe there is a very good reason why the Second Amendment IS the second and comes immediately after the First.

Without the First, specifically putting in place restrictions upon the government and keeping it from destroying the ability of the individual to speak out, through news or the church or for people to gather in defiance of tyranny in a peaceful protest – then the next step is to move to the Second Amendment.

Because, without a voice, the Second Amendment is the only way to keep a tyrannical force from destroying ALL other inalienable rights. It is the last stand.

Again, is a ban on speech or expression reasonable?

If no, then a ban on the ability of the individual to use arms as a last check and balance against the tyranny of a government seeking to infringe upon Liberty is not reasonable either.

And, if the Second goes, then we will have no ability to stop speak out, gather and protest, etc.

It's already started.

The Second Amendment is the biggest reason we aren't under the iron fist of what ever power is attempting to rule over us at any given time.

mt4design
01-03-2013, 12:10 PM
Reasonable restrictions upon an inalienable right...

First, did you know there was a Preamble to the Bill of Rights?

The Preamble to The Bill of Rights

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Restrictions should not be placed upon inalienable rights but rather upon the states and government in order to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers".

But, I digress...and instead of directing you to the Second Amendment, I would ask this;

What reasonable restrictions are there on speech?

You can't yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater. That is reasonable.

Is a ban on speech reasonable?

What reasonable restrictions are there on religion? Is a ban on religious freedom reasonable?

Actually, the government is moving quickly to destroy religion, banning the show of some religious symbols while promoting the showing of others and pushing certain churches to support things like birth control and even funding abortion. The inalienable right to the free exercise thereof is under fire.

My belief is that God or your Creator is a hindrance to their desire to kill the Constitution all together. If they can kill God, then we have no such thing as inalienable rights only those which the government grants to us.

What reasonable restrictions are there to the right of the people to peacefully assemble?

Is a ban on such assembly reasonable?

I say no but that is exactly what the government is doing when they disallow protests here at summits like NATO, economic summits, or POLITICAL CONVENTIONS, etc.

What about the Fourth Amendment?

Is it right for law enforcement to conduct a body cavity search of two women during a road side stop (http://www.examiner.com/article/two-women-sue-texas-dept-of-public-safety-over-body-cavity-search)? Or for private conversations to be put under surveillance without a warrant? Or for hard drives to be seized without a warrant?

Our government is already well underway in completely destroying the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I believe there is a very good reason why the Second Amendment IS the second and comes immediately after the First.

Without the First, specifically putting in place restrictions upon the government and keeping it from destroying the ability of the individual to speak out, through news or the church or for people to gather in defiance of tyranny in a peaceful protest Ė then the next step is to move to the Second Amendment.

Because, without a voice, the Second Amendment is the only way to keep a tyrannical force from destroying ALL other inalienable rights. It is the last stand.

Again, is a ban on speech or expression reasonable?

If no, then a ban on the ability of the individual to use arms as a last check and balance against the tyranny of a government seeking to infringe upon Liberty is not reasonable either.

And, if the Second goes, then we will have no ability to stop speak out, gather and protest, etc.

It's already started.

The Second Amendment is the biggest reason we aren't under the iron fist of what ever power is attempting to rule over us at any given time.

IVC
01-03-2013, 12:12 PM
What would the government's compelling interest be in licensing possession of firearms (shall issue as in NYC and IL)?

Nobody really knows. There are some cases challenging some aspects of the "license to possess," but I believe they are not challenging the whole scheme, so we don't really know what they'll claim.

Remember, though, they have to not only explicitly state what the interest is, but also to prove it works. So, if someone wants to discuss with you the "license to own" concept, it's *them* who have to define both what they are trying to accomplish *and* prove it accomplishes what they claimed it would *and* that *you* (not them) cannot come up with a less restrictive method of achieving the same goal (provided they pass the first two hurdles).

M. D. Van Norman
01-03-2013, 1:46 PM
If they can kill God, then we have no such thing as inalienable rights.Ö

My inalienable rights arenít dependent on God.

JagerDog
01-03-2013, 7:07 PM
Gotta have a license to drive a car.


Gone full troll

On public roads.

Don't need a license to buy or own a car.

Driver license is much closer to LTC.




Exactly. The driver's license is to drive on public roads, furnished by the public.

mt4design
01-04-2013, 5:44 AM
My inalienable rights aren’t dependent on God.

Are you picking nits?

Are they then bestowed upon you by your Creator? The point being they are a natural and inherent right vs a right granted to you through the laws of man, a king or government.

If the powers that be can kill God, which is a predominate belief as the "Creator", then they can then determine what rights you can be granted and what rights you will be denied.

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...

fortdick
01-04-2013, 9:59 AM
The truth of the matter is that we are at a tipping point boys and girls. The Patriot Act allows unlimited warrantless surveillance. We now have drones flying over us to determine if we are violating EPA regs. Internet communications are remotely monitored and screened for trigger words that may result in the FBI opening an investigation. The NDAA allows the government to detain indefinitely any individual, whether a citizen or not, it deems to be a threat to national security.

The First Amendment has been undermined by progressive wishing to establish a national religion. Secular Humanism is as much a religion as Catholicism. Prefaced on atheism, Humanism is unequivocally a religious belief (or disbelief in this case). By supplanting God with government, they are intentional establishing a new national religious doctrine. Marxist-Leninism is based on this principle.

We see a president that maintains a "Marked for Death" list created by him and his advisors based upon some obscure methodology and criteria. When located, the persons on this list, whether citizens or not, are systematically eliminated through standoff strikes that do not take into consideration collateral deaths. The premises being that if you associate with enemies of this government, you are culpable as well. As many as 900 innocents, 176 of whom have been confirmed as children, have been killed by drones under the pretense of national security. The vast majority of these murders have been undertaken by the current administration.

The facts are that the Bill of Rights has been so undermined that unless drastic measures are taken, we will see the Constitution die in our lifetimes. Our elected officials are not subject to the will of the people; rather they are subject to the will of their party and the purse strings that keep them in office. We have no method of holding politicians accountable. They are more afraid of their party bosses than their constituents.

We are at a crossroad and must decide which turn to take. Do we accept that the government and the politicians know better than we do how our lives should be shaped? Do we continue to accept lies and deception as the necessary tools of government? Do we sacrifice liberty for security? We can no longer say we are free men while we allow others to maintain control over every aspect of our lives.

It is now or never, folks. What is it going to be?

mt4design
01-04-2013, 10:20 AM
The truth of the matter is that we are at a tipping point boys and girls. The Patriot Act allows unlimited warrantless surveillance. We now have drones flying over us to determine if we are violating EPA regs. Internet communications are remotely monitored and screened for trigger words that may result in the FBI opening an investigation. The NDAA allows the government to detain indefinitely any individual, whether a citizen or not, it deems to be a threat to national security.

The First Amendment has been undermined by progressive wishing to establish a national religion. Secular Humanism is as much a religion as Catholicism. Prefaced on atheism, Humanism is unequivocally a religious belief (or disbelief in this case). By supplanting God with government, they are intentional establishing a new national religious doctrine. Marxist-Leninism is based on this principle.

We see a president that maintains a "Marked for Death" list created by him and his advisors based upon some obscure methodology and criteria. When located, the persons on this list, whether citizens or not, are systematically eliminated through standoff strikes that do not take into consideration collateral deaths. The premises being that if you associate with enemies of this government, you are culpable as well. As many as 900 innocents, 176 of whom have been confirmed as children, have been killed by drones under the pretense of national security. The vast majority of these murders have been undertaken by the current administration.

The facts are that the Bill of Rights has been so undermined that unless drastic measures are taken, we will see the Constitution die in our lifetimes. Our elected officials are not subject to the will of the people; rather they are subject to the will of their party and the purse strings that keep them in office. We have no method of holding politicians accountable. They are more afraid of their party bosses than their constituents.

We are at a crossroad and must decide which turn to take. Do we accept that the government and the politicians know better than we do how our lives should be shaped? Do we continue to accept lies and deception as the necessary tools of government? Do we sacrifice liberty for security? We can no longer say we are free men while we allow others to maintain control over every aspect of our lives.

It is now or never, folks. What is it going to be?

Incredibly well stated.

M. D. Van Norman
01-04-2013, 10:29 AM
Are you picking nits?

No. Iím dispensing with your appeal to authority. Inalienable rights (inherent to our existence) derive from no authority, whether secular or divine.

Rossi357
01-04-2013, 10:40 AM
My inalienable rights arenít dependent on God.

Gods existance must be proven first.
I have trouble with a god that says, "worship me or I will torture you forever".

fortdick
01-04-2013, 10:49 AM
Gods existance must be proven first.
I have trouble with a god that says, "worship me or I will torture you forever".

God's existence is there to see, you just have to look for it.

My God does not tirture folks, he just let's them torture themselves. HE helps those that look for help.

But this isn't a theology discussion. You don't believe, that is fine. Just don't interfere with my right ot believe.

njineermike
01-04-2013, 10:53 AM
The 2nd Amendment is NOT an inalienable right. The right exists and is inalienable regardless of the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment restricts (or is supposed to restrict) government from being able to punish a person for the the exercise of that right. As long as people see this as a government granted right via the 2A, they will also see it as something the government can refuse.

A-J
01-04-2013, 12:11 PM
What would the government's compelling interest be in licensing possession of firearms (shall issue as in NYC and IL)?

The government's stated purpose would be "to reduce crime" is my guess. But, as Canada has learned after billions of canadian dollars spent (converted it was like $100 US dollars ;) ) on a registry that it did nothing, not a single damn thing, to reduce crime.

Of course, if the .gov wanted to come for your guns in the dead of night, a registry would be a very useful tool to that end.

Wherryj
01-04-2013, 5:05 PM
Gotta have a license to drive a car.

Driving is a priviledge. There is also far less "discretion" when granting a driver's license. If there wasn't, the roads in Alameda Co would be very open-having all of 18 drivers allowed.

M. D. Van Norman
01-04-2013, 5:50 PM
Driving sure is a privilege. Thatís why a car wonít start without a licensed driver behind the wheel.

wjc
01-04-2013, 5:56 PM
Driving sure is a privilege. That's why a car won't start without a licensed driver behind the wheel.

I see what you did there.

Good thing they didn't have cars like that when I was fourteen. :43:

btw,

inalienable right - a right according to natural law, a right that cannot be taken away, denied, or transferred

Drivedabizness
01-04-2013, 6:13 PM
Here is my take.

Reasonable Gun Control (http://mdvannorman.blogspot.com/2012/12/reasonable-gun-control.html)

But if you try to implement licensing, Eric Holder will come after you for trying to institute something analagous to a poll tax ;) :facepalm:

SilverTauron
01-04-2013, 6:34 PM
I'm engaged in a gun control debate with someone who thinks we should license all gun owners. I'm aware that the 2nd is an inalienable right, that licensing a right is un-Constitutional, and that we do permit reasonable restrictions.

I would appreciate some scholarly/legalese commentary on this, particularly on the limits of reasonable restrictions. What are the legal barriers to licensing gun ownership?

The first problem with this topic is that people assume the Government has the power to even license a gun owner.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms can be exercised with or without government permission. If DC banned carry tomorrow, does that prevent anyone from carrying a gun? No.

Put another way, governments can't license a civil right any more then they can license the Moon's orbit. The idea of licensing gun owners to reduce crime is as absurd as New York City licensing the moon to orbit the Earth so as to reduce the tides. As gang bangers in Chicago prove daily, people will carry weapons whether its legal for them to or not.

bohoki
01-04-2013, 8:17 PM
i think it should be like the crowded theater analogy you are only allowed to yell fire if its on fire