Does the 2nd Amendment mean what its author(s) originally intended?

[curtisfong]

quite vibrant, and roughly comparable to California. Please explain what would be so bad about it.

Seriously? This doesn't even merit a response. https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/....php?t=1781464 doesn't bother you in the least? The gun "culture" is going to consist of double barreled shotguns, bolt action rifles and wheelguns in 10-20 years, and probably nothing left in 30-40. And the white, male, wealthy, privileged elite in that "culture" (who knows a sheriff, a judge, a politician, a movie star) will still be bragging about how wonderful and vibrant it is to have permission to own one or two firearms, while the rest of the population talks about banning knives to eliminate the "root cause of violence". Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

With friends like these...

Sorry, but I see no sig line.

Right, of course you have those turned off. Trust me, mine does not say Molon Labe.

http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html

[MountainLion]

They have gun culture but I see no way that they have gun rights. A right (particularly as related to government) is something the average person can successfully insist upon even in the face of government opposition.

I honestly have never lived in NY, IL, Switzerland, or Sweden. So the information about how the scenario below works is second-hand, but I think it is pretty accurate.

So you want have a gun? In all these places, you begin by going to a city or county administration office. You fill out a form, and walk up to a counter. There is a clerk there, you give him the form. They will ask: Do you have an ID? Do you want to buy a gun? Then they will check that you are not on the list of convicted felons, mentally defective, or otherwise prohibited. So far, the process in NY/IL/SW/SW is the same. In NY/IL, they now give you a little card; in IL, it's called the "FOID", and I don't know the name of the card in NY. In SW/SW, they will now ask you: "Why do you want to buy a gun", and you might answer "I want to hunt", or "I want to target shoot". They will now ask you: Can you prove it? And you show them the record of the hunter training class, and the certificate you got when you went on a hunt with a rented rifle. Or you show them the membership in the local range/club, and the scores you shot with the borrowed pistol. Then they give you the card. In all these places, you then take that card to a gun store, pick out the one you want, given them lots of money, show them your card, and go home with a gun.

What happens if the clerk says "I don't feel like giving you the card"? Well, they would be stupid to do that. Because then you'll ask for their supervisor, who will chew them out and give you the card. The important part is: this process is "shall issue", there is nothing arbitrary about it. They can't deny you if you meet the known prerequisites.

So, what exactly is a "gun right"? It seems the only operative difference is: In NY/IL, where the gun right is enshrined in the constitution, you don't have to answer the "why" question; in SW/SW, you do have to. Seriously, that's all there is to the 2A? It saves you the few extra weekends at the range or the hunting club, and the 10 minutes at the counter?

None of those countries have that with respect to guns. Only the U.S. does, as far as I know.

As far as I know, there is a small number of countries where the right to own guns is enshrined in the constitution. I think the other two are Mexico (where to my knowledge is it virtually impossible for an individual to get a gun legally), and the Czech Republic (where it is as easy as in most European countries, meaning you have to first get a shall-issue permit).

Again I ask: What good is a "gun right", if you still have to do the paperwork (like in Cz), or can't get a gun at all?

Now you might argue: "But in Switzerland and Sweden, the government (meaning the population, meaning the voters) could change the rules so that no such permits are issued any longer. Here in the US they can't do that." Well, are you sure? Look at the example of pre-Heller DC: the government there got pretty darn close to completely outlawing guns. And California's gun control laws are getting uncomfortably close (for example the roster as far as pistols are concerned). In places like DC or CA, that's possible because the voters overwhelmingly (see Prop63) want to see guns removed.

So I think the only value of the 2A is this: It is a backstop. It says "you can regulate guns super strictly, but you can completely get rid of them". As a joke, the real meaning of the 2A in California might be: The roster has to have at least one handgun on it, even if it is just the 22LR Buntline revolver. For "keep", the Heller decision has defined what the 2A means: Everyone who is not prohibited can have a gun at home, suitable for self defense, which means in particular a handgun. No less, but also no more. For "bear", we'll know in a few months what the 2A means.

Is that what we want? No, as a gun collector, shooter, and generally gun person I want more guarantees. I would like to buy an unmodified AR or AK, I would like to be able to get a silencer, and a 50BMG rifle seems like a fun thing to take out to the rangeonce a year. I would like to buy a Canik or Staccato by just ordering it, as easily as a Glock 17 Gen 3. I want to make sure my "edgy" guns (like the RAWs or large-cap magazines) are not going to get completely outlawed soon (the magazines are in serious danger there). But the 2A does not say that any of these things are guaranteed.

But I think the way to get to those things is not to try to convince SCOTUS Justices of what the 2A really means: they are guaranteed to not listen to me. The way to get there is to convince voters in this state that guns are not evil. That gun people are also normal people, and not just hate-filled crazies, unreasonable lunatics, and scam artists. If little old ladies with a middle-class existence (like me) can have a serious gun hobby, guns can't be all that bad.

[MountainLion]

Seriously? This doesn't even merit a response.

You didn't read or understand the post you're quoting. Because the list of "50 cases" (which nobody has been able to substantiate yet) is a non-sequitur.

[curtisfong]

So I think the only value of the 2A is this: It is a backstop. It says "you can regulate guns super strictly, but you can completely get rid of them". As a joke (bold mine - ed), the real meaning of the 2A in California might be: The roster has to have at least one handgun on it, even if it is just the 22LR Buntline revolver. For "keep", the Heller decision has defined what the 2A means: Everyone who is not prohibited can have a gun at home, suitable for self defense, which means in particular a handgun. No less, but also no more. For "bear", we'll know in a few months what the 2A means.

Is that what we want? No, as a gun collector, shooter, and generally gun person I want more guarantees. I would like to buy an unmodified AR or AK, I would like to be able to get a silencer, and a 50BMG rifle seems like a fun thing to take out to the rangeonce a year. I would like to buy a Canik or Staccato by just ordering it, as easily as a Glock 17 Gen 3. I want to make sure my "edgy" guns (like the RAWs or large-cap magazines) are not going to get completely outlawed soon (the magazines are in serious danger there).

So far so good, especially the "joke" part. But then you say

But the 2A does not say that any of these things are guaranteed.

It's almost as if you agree with a principle, but are so convinced there is no point to having principles (because a judge might disagree with you) that you simply give it up. Please read the article I linked.

But I think the way to get to those things is not to try to convince SCOTUS Justices of what the 2A really means: they are guaranteed to not listen to me. The way to get there is to convince voters in this state that guns are evil. That gun people are also normal people, and not just hate-filled crazies, unreasonable lunatics, and scam artists. If little old ladies with a middle-class existence (like me) can have a serious gun hobby, guns can't be all that bad.

You can have all of that and still believe the 2A has value and meaning beyond what those hostile to the right hold to be true. Whether or not SCOTUS agrees with you amounts to the same problem (that of convincing politicians they don't have to be anti gun, and the average liberal that guns aren't evil), regardless of your core beliefs.

So why not carefully re-examine the purpose of the 2A, which might be to make sure that states like CA can't make a joke of it at the whim of populism? Even if the courts scoff at the 2A (or end up gutting every right as "collective" or "not unlimited" or "dangerous" or "contrary to the public interest"), every one of the Bill of Rights expresses a principle, and is backed by some sort of common understanding that each of the rights have value, irrespective of politics or courts or politicians or even a system of government, despite their inherent danger to public safety. They do not exist in a vacuum. Why are you giving so much deference to what a judge says when the courts have a truly atrocious record (Miller, Cruikshank, Slaughterhouse, Dred Scott) and precedent is littered with horrifyingly badly decided cases? Fundamentally, does it really matter what any judge (or court) thinks about meaning or intent? Are there not things you can believe which a court will simply never respect due to public pressure at best, or the tyranny of the majority at worst? You are absolutely allowed to believe the 2A protects more than a "joke". If you think claiming otherwise in public will gain you more support from those hostile to the right, you've already lost. Unless you can get them to understand that the 2A protects a (dangerous) right, like freedom of speech or presumption of innocence, "public safety" will always trump any desire to own dangerous objects, down to billy clubs, staves, knives, nunchucks, sais, etc.... ironically many of which were invented to get around weapons bans when only a select few were allowed to carry things like swords; but are still banned in ... you guessed it, California.

[curtisfong]

For "keep", the Heller decision has defined what the 2A means: Everyone who is not prohibited can have a gun at home, suitable for self defense, which means in particular a handgun. No less, but also no more.

I also can't let this go... I dispute that "primarily" (which you skipped as part of "in the home") means "exclusively" even if "primarily" is only dicta.

Also "suitable for self defense" means loaded or unloaded? Locked up?

You didn't read or understand the post you're quoting. Because the list of "50 cases" (which nobody has been able to substantiate yet) is a non-sequitur.

10 is more than enough, and those 10 are bad enough. They illustrate where CA's "vibrant culture" is going quite well.

[kcbrown]

I honestly have never lived in NY, IL, Switzerland, or Sweden. So the information about how the scenario below works is second-hand, but I think it is pretty accurate.

It matches my understanding as well.

What happens if the clerk says "I don't feel like giving you the card"? Well, they would be stupid to do that. Because then you'll ask for their supervisor, who will chew them out and give you the card. The important part is: this process is "shall issue", there is nothing arbitrary about it. They can't deny you if you meet the known prerequisites.

That's true only if the law really does impose "shall issue". It appears that the permit really is "shall issue" in Switzerland, and that their law in general is no more restrictive than California law (it's an improvement for magazines, with the limit being 20 rounds instead of 10).

So, what exactly is a "gun right"? It seems the only operative difference is: In NY/IL, where the gun right is enshrined in the constitution, you don't have to answer the "why" question; in SW/SW, you do have to. Seriously, that's all there is to the 2A? It saves you the few extra weekends at the range or the hunting club, and the 10 minutes at the counter?

In terms of the immediate functional difference, I think you're correct, at least for now. The 2nd Amendment's primary effect is on the outcome of litigation, and the jurisprudence from it is still in its early stages, relative to the jurisprudence from other rights.

But that's its primary effect. There are other effects, such as on culture, that may in the end prove to be more important.

As far as I know, there is a small number of countries where the right to own guns is enshrined in the constitution. I think the other two are Mexico (where to my knowledge is it virtually impossible for an individual to get a gun legally), and the Czech Republic (where it is as easy as in most European countries, meaning you have to first get a shall-issue permit).

The difference is that, at least in Mexico, the constitutional "protection" is rendered ineffective thanks to the usual "exceptions" that we see in places that pay only lip service to such things. Here's what the Mexican constitution says:

Article 10: The inhabitants of the United Mexican States have the right to keep arms in their homes, for security and legitimate defense, with the exception of those prohibited by federal law and those reserved for the exclusive use of the Army, Navy, Air Force and National Guard. Federal law will determine the cases, conditions, requirements, and places in which the carrying of arms will be authorized to the inhabitants.

Since "federal law" is a blanket exception, it means in practice that "federal law" is the only defining characteristic of the "right", which means that in practice the people there don't have a constitutional right to arms at all. Federal law there could stipulate any restrictions whatsoever, and because of the "exception" above, those restrictions would be "constitutional".

This article might be useful: https://www.businessinsider.com/2nd-...r-arms-2017-10

As for the Czech Republic, the only thing enshrined in their constitution (really, their Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms) is, it seems, the right to defend life with arms. This means that the right to keep and carry arms isn't enshrined in their constitutional documents at all. In practice, this makes the constitutional protection no different from what's in California law: you can defend life with a firearm if it magically appears in your hand, but whether or not you can actually have that firearm on you is determined solely by the laws themselves, and has no other protection.

Again I ask: What good is a "gun right", if you still have to do the paperwork (like in Cz), or can't get a gun at all?

It's not any good at all if you (the average person) can't get a gun at all. But here in the U.S., at least, the average person can.

Now you might argue: "But in Switzerland and Sweden, the government (meaning the population, meaning the voters) could change the rules so that no such permits are issued any longer. Here in the US they can't do that." Well, are you sure? Look at the example of pre-Heller DC: the government there got pretty darn close to completely outlawing guns. And California's gun control laws are getting uncomfortably close (for example the roster as far as pistols are concerned). In places like DC or CA, that's possible because the voters overwhelmingly (see Prop63) want to see guns removed.

So I think the only value of the 2A is this: It is a backstop.

Right, it's a backstop. But it's the very presence of that backstop that prevents the government from changing the rules so that no such permits are issued any longer.

And while being a backstop may be its primary value, that's not its only value. Another value is its effects on culture. Much of the reason the country as a whole is as free as it is with respect to firearms is precisely because there's a passage in the founding document of the country that says, in black and white, that you have a right to keep and bear arms.

That means that the changes to law you speak of above will have more resistance than they would otherwise, and would take longer to be made. Yes, DC came very close, and California is proceeding in that direction. But imagine where we'd be without it in the first place. I dare say we'd be without the ability to own arms at all by now (save for those who are "special") if it weren't for the enshrinement of the right in the Constitution.

It says "you can regulate guns super strictly, but you can completely get rid of them".

No, that's not what it says. What it actually says on that has yet to be determined. For now its operative effect on "regulation" is limited, but again, that's because jurisprudence is still in its early stages. There's a lot of litigation left to be done.

Be careful not to conflate the current situation with respect to the effects of the 2nd Amendment with the more fully developed situation that will be in effect sometime in the future.

For "keep", the Heller decision has defined what the 2A means: Everyone who is not prohibited can have a gun at home, suitable for self defense, which means in particular a handgun. No less, but also no more.

No less, certainly. But you can't yet say "no more", because that has yet to be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court. At this point, what we know is the minimum of what the 2nd Amendment protects. We don't yet know the maximum. And, quite frankly, we might never really know, at least in our lifetimes.

For "bear", we'll know in a few months what the 2A means.

Is that what we want? No, as a gun collector, shooter, and generally gun person I want more guarantees. I would like to buy an unmodified AR or AK, I would like to be able to get a silencer, and a 50BMG rifle seems like a fun thing to take out to the rangeonce a year. I would like to buy a Canik or Staccato by just ordering it, as easily as a Glock 17 Gen 3. I want to make sure my "edgy" guns (like the RAWs or large-cap magazines) are not going to get completely outlawed soon (the magazines are in serious danger there). But the 2A does not say that any of these things are guaranteed.

It doesn't yet, at least in practice. We'll see whether that remains the case.

But I think the way to get to those things is not to try to convince SCOTUS Justices of what the 2A really means: they are guaranteed to not listen to me.

Guaranteed to not listen to you? How do you know?

Were you aware that, if you really wanted to and got the assent of the plaintiffs, you could file amicus briefs in the cases that are or will be in play? There's a user on mdshooters, John Cutonilli (jcutonilli is his username) who is doing precisely that.

The way to get there is to convince voters in this state that guns are evil.

Or, better yet, not evil. Yeah, I know that's what you meant.

That gun people are also normal people, and not just hate-filled crazies, unreasonable lunatics, and scam artists. If little old ladies with a middle-class existence (like me) can have a serious gun hobby, guns can't be all that bad.

I'm completely in agreement with you that such persuasion is monumentally important to the point of being necessary (else it may only be a matter of time before even Supreme Court jurisprudence is overturned). But remember that the right is a backstop. You need it to be a proper backstop. Making it that backstop means, ultimately, convincing the Supreme Court to give it that effect.

And this is so because the operative mechanism of the 2nd Amendment is litigation in the courts, to enjoin the government from enforcing laws which violate it.

[MountainLion]

Or, better, yet, not evil. Yeah, I know that's what you meant.

Fixed. Embarrassing editing mistake on my part.

[Bhobbs]

The real question is does the 2nd amendment grant us the right to have a gun, singular and whatever gun they decide, or does it prevent the government from interfering in our decision to buy, sell and use any firearm we choose?

Currently, it’s seen as the first option. As long as you can own a firearm, the right is satisfied. The type of firearm, the difficulty in buying it, where you can have it, if you can carry it, how many rounds it holds, how many rounds it fires, etc are all up for regulation.

As long as you can go buy, eventually… maybe, a firearm from the approved selection, your second amendment rights are satisfied.