Biden’s Gun Policies In His Own Words

[raimius]

I always thought the concept of a collective right was awkward. It is a right that the group possesses, but no member of the group can assert.

If no one in the group can claim the right, how can the group claim it? Groups are collections of individuals. You cannot seriously claim the public has freedom of speech, if none of the people that make up "the public" has freedom of speech.

 

[ATN082268]

I always thought the concept of a collective right was awkward. It is a right that the group possesses, but no member of the group can assert.

If no one in the group can claim the right, how can the group claim it? Groups are collections of individuals. You cannot seriously claim the public has freedom of speech, if none of the people that make up "the public" has freedom of speech.

Is there any historical evidence to support the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are group rights? Also, isn't it illogical to claim the 1st Amendment is an individual right but the 2nd Amendment is a group right?

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Is there any historical evidence to support the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are group rights? Also, isn't it illogical to claim the 1st Amendment is an individual right but the 2nd Amendment is a group right?

On a federal level, no. And the Heller decision, as well as a 1982 Senate report on the Second Amendment and a 2004 Department of Justice report on the Second Amendment all confirm that the RKBA in the Second Amendment is an individual right.

That said, the Massachusetts Supreme Court has, in the past, ruled that their state constitution protects only a collective right. That's how they justify some of their arbitrary and draconian gun laws and, so far, nobody has challenged any of them to the point of getting them before the SCOTUS.

 

[44 AMP]

At the risk of derailing an otherwise interesting argument, I will again point out that the Bill of Rights grants NO rights. (and, I think, deliberately so)

It is a list of restrictions on the government action in regard to certain enumerated rights which exist as a result of the human condition, not any document made by man.

And it also contains the language that there more rights than just those enumerated in the BOR and to whom they respectively belong.

 

[zukiphile]

At the risk of derailing an otherwise interesting argument, I will again point out that the Bill of Rights grants NO rights. (and, I think, deliberately so)

It is a list of restrictions on the government action in regard to certain enumerated rights which exist as a result of the human condition, not any document made by man.

I don't believe that derails the argument, but raises the issue of how we should construe constitutional language bearing on rights.

1. Do we construe language in favor of a government power? An example might be interstate commerce in which distant or aggregate effect are enough to empower the government to act.

2. Do we construe language against a government power? An example might be the establishment clause where a prohibition on Congressional establishment of a government religion develops into a sense that religiously informed expression at public events could be a problem.

The collective right theory expressed by the Heller minority appears to me to construe the language in favor of the government power. It requires a special definition of "the people" to conclude that while some kind of right must exist because it has a number and a sentence in the document, it's the only one an individual can't have. That's a sort of three card monte with the substance of the right.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I don't believe that derails the argument, but raises the issue of how we should construe constitutional language bearing on rights.

1. Do we construe language in favor of a government power? An example might be interstate commerce in which distant or aggregate effect are enough to empower the government to act.

There are many who think the Congress has gone much too far in applying the Interstate Commerce Act to things it was never intended to cover. The notion that something made, sold, purchased, and used entirely within one state could be subject to the Interstate Commerce Act because by being made, sold, bought, and used within one state it AFFECTS interstate commerce by not making it necessary for the buyer to engage in Interstate commerce is a mind bender of the first order.

2. Do we construe language against a government power? An example might be the establishment clause where a prohibition on Congressional establishment of a government religion develops into a sense that religiously informed expression at public events could be a problem.

The entire Constitution was written to define the limits of the federal government's powers. It clearly states that the powers (any and all powers, presumably) not specifically assigned to the feral [sic] government are reserved to the states, and to the People. To me, that's a strong hint that we should construe language against government (at least federal) power.

The collective right theory expressed by the Heller minority appears to me to construe the language in favor of the government power. It requires a special definition of "the people" to conclude that while some kind of right must exist because it has a number and a sentence in the document, it's the only one an individual can't have. That's a sort of three card monte with the substance of the right.

Agreed. Fortunately, that was a minority, dissenting opinion.

 

[pete2]

Folks, the democrat platform is to eliminate private ownership of guns...............Under a communist/socialist regime civilians do not legally own firearms. Armed citizens are very hard to control. Do you think Hitler could have loaded the Jews into boxcars if they had been armed?????

 

[44 AMP]

.... into boxcars if they had been armed?????

Of course they could have. It would have taken more effort but considering they defeated the armed might of entire nations, I don't see a small number of armed people winning. Which is, however quite aside from the point.

We've drifted a long way from Biden's announced policies and I think we've covered the OP fairly well and tolerated a lot of thread drift, but i don't see anything further on topic to discuss.

Time to close this one, I think.