Second Amendment Rights

G

glh17

New member
I haven't thought this through completely but seeing one of the threads about Illinois' carry law got me to thinking, especially about high crime areas in large cities.

I wonder how many law abiding citizens who live in these areas are unable to buy a suitable home defense/carry gun or devote either the time or the money for training and the permit fee. My guess is that there's more than a few, but I may be wrong. If so, then the second amendment really doesn't mean much to them and they are the targets of a substantial amount of crime. They either have to violate the gun laws or continue to be intimated by or victims of criminals.

I know not much can be done about the affordability of a gun but it seems like a fee shouldn't be an impediment to exercising a "right." It seems the ones that would benefit most by being able to defend themselves are the ones least likely to be able to defend themselves.
 
It is a right, but since congress and the courts have not raised it to the level of discrimination, etc, it still seems to get trampled by states rights and private property rights, effectively eliminating this fundamental right in places you have described. I do not believe for a minute that our founding fathers intended for this right to be eroded in this way. That was probably the reason for the strong general statement "shall not be infringed" on the end.
 
IL new carry law is right in line with all the old Jim Crow laws that were written right after the (un)civil war to restrain the freedoms and rights of the underprivileged. Originally, they were aimed only at disenfranchising the black population, but effectively disenfranchised the poor white also.

The laws were intentionally written so only the well off would/could comply, thereby making the poor a non-entity (politically) and more dependent on the politicos. The "Saturday night special" bans were exactly the same thing...make legal handgun ownership for personal defense too expensive for the un-privileged.
 
Originally, they were aimed only at disenfranchising the black population
Click to expand...
That certainly was the reason for the 'may issue" vs "shall issue" as well as local town police chief control of permits simply to own as in NJ.

People think the south was the sole center of gravity of prejudice were not in Boston, the "Athens of America" during school integration or in NJ during the late 60's. Lots of laws across the US, including many still in effect, were aimed specifically at disenfranchising African Americans from gun ownership.
 
Those shotgun programs are part of what of I'd like to at least to seriously consider. There would have to be careful oversight and adequate training but a shotgun would provide decent home defense.

I'd also like to see more done in the area of carry permits. Although I'm pretty far removed from such things, I know there are neighborhoods and sections of towns and cities where it is dangerous to sit out on the porch much less walk around the neighborhood or shop. Maybe if the thugs thought someone might shoot back they'd stop that crap.

Maybe provide qualified people (or as many as possible) with free or very low cost guns, free training, and free (or reduced) permit fees. Subject to wife's approval :), I'd be willing to take a qualified person to the range a few times, pay for the person's carry class, and permit fee.

I'd want to know the person was qualified and would not (or could not) sell the gun or trade the gun for something other than a suitable personal defense gun. Maybe there's some other stuff I'd hadn't thought about as well. Those programs mentioned above represent a movement in the right direction.

Some of the guns could come from criminals whose guns are captured.
 
glh17 said:
Maybe provide qualified people (or as many as possible) with free or very low cost guns, free training, and free (or reduced) permit fees. Subject to wife's approval , I'd be willing to take a qualified person to the range a few times, pay for the person's carry class, and permit fee.
Click to expand...
Between your opening post and this one, I am left with the impression that you either do not understand the 2nd Amendment, or do not agree with it. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment about training, or qualifications. There is also nothing about fees and permits, from which I derive my (personal) opinion that permits to carry are unconstitutional in those states that do not allow any mode of carry without a permit. (When one mode of carry is allowed -- typically open carry -- then a permit for the other mode -- typically concealed -- is regulation but not prohibition. I don't happen to believe the 2nd Amendment allows for even that level of regulation, but the SCOTUS disagrees.)

To be honest, I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what your position is.
 
I'm taking the 2nd amendment to mean what the SCOTUS says it means for the purposes of this post. Like it or not, most states restrict the ownership and right to carry to some extent. The current court allows such restrictions and my hypothetical proposal takes that as given.

I realize the amendment itself doesn't say anything about any of these restrictions, but I don't think it would be a good idea to simply give guns willynilly to anyone who shows up wanting one, nor do I think it wise to give guns away to people for the purpose of carry without them qualifying and paying the fee. They could easily end up in jail rather than defending themselves. If the court changes its interpretation or if a clarifying amendment is passed then the restrictions could go away.
 
glh17 said:
I'm taking the 2nd amendment to mean what the SCOTUS says it means for the purposes of this post. Like it or not, most states restrict the ownership and right to carry to some extent. The current court allows such restrictions and my hypothetical proposal takes that as given.
Click to expand...
And what is it that you think the SCOTUS says the 2nd Amendment means?

In both Heller and McDonald the SCOTUS wrote extensively that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self defense. But in both cases that was part of the dicta. The holding in Heller was that Washington, DC's law prohibiting the keeping of a functional firearm in the home was unconstitutional. And that's ALL the case held. In McDonald, the Court held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the states as well as to the federal government. And that's ALL the case held.

As to the constitutionality of further restriction, take note that Justice Scalia referred to them as "presumptively" constitutional. That's shorthand for "That's not the question before us so we won't answer that. That can be dealt with on another day in another case." Which is exactly what's playing out in the lower courts all across the country right now. The SCOTUS "allows" such restrictions only because they haven't baan asked to rule on them. Eventually, some of these cases will make it before the SCOTUS, some of these "presumptively constitutional" regulations may survive, and others will most likely be shot down in flames.


glh17 said:
I realize the amendment itself doesn't say anything about any of these restrictions, but I don't think it would be a good idea to simply give guns willynilly to anyone who shows up wanting one, nor do I think it wise to give guns away to people for the purpose of carry without them qualifying and paying the fee. They could easily end up in jail rather than defending themselves. If the court changes its interpretation or if a clarifying amendment is passed then the restrictions could go away.
Click to expand...
But whether or not you think it's a good idea to give guns to "just anybody," the 2nd Amendment does not provide any qualifiers nor does it appear to leave any opening for qualifiers. You certainly have every right to think that only certain people should be allowed to have guns, and that they should pay a fee for the privilege. But that position is not in any way commensurate with the 2nd Amendment.
 
When the SCOTUS rules that there may be no restriction on the right to own and bear arms give me a call. I know gun control issues are still in the court but my proposal is about the law as it is now, at least in TN. I'm not familiar with other state laws except those in which I intend to visit. The few states I go to these days all recognize my TN permit. I'll obey the laws of other states if I visit them.

Right now to carry a gun legally in TN you must meet certain qualifications, pay a fee, and pass a background check. Some day this may be ruled unconstitutional but right now the TN law is apparently constitutional. I'm not a lawyer and don't know how the court would rule if contested. Maybe I could have saved the $115 state fee and $50 carry class that I took a few weeks ago.

Do you know of any state that doesn't have at least some restriction on gun ownership and carry?
 
Do you know of any state that doesn't have at least some restriction on gun ownership and carry?
Click to expand...
Vermont, Arizona, Alaska, and I believe Wyoming. Others are moving in the same direction.

Pennsylvania and Ohio (among others) allow open carry with no permit, but require a permit to carry concealed. This is what I meant by regulating the mode of carry, while not outright requiring a permit to exercise the RKBA.
 
So these states allow purchase and carry to absolutely anybody including all types of convicted felons, people with a history of mental problems, and kids? No restrictions whatsoever, just a right to possess and bear. When I said I would not give out guns and pay permit fees willynilly I was thinking about people with certain types of criminal backgrounds, history of mental problems, and age.

If a state decides to issue to anyone (or the SCOTUS rules all restrictions to be unconstitutional), so be it. However, my proposal is strictly a private sector proposal. Personally, I would not give some people a gun based previous criminal activity involving some types of violence or previous mental problems. The state might allow it, or someone else could give them one, but not me or any organization I'd be a part of.

Now, I would not mind if the state waived the training and fee parts of carry laws. The part of my proposal dealing with training and permit fees was there because I think these are unduly restrictive on very low income individuals. It would not bother me if the state just did away with these things for everyone. I included training and permit fees because most states currently require them. I would still include some shooting and safety training in my give away program.
 
So like if a person gets pulled over moving from one hunting setup to another by car with a round in the mag, they should never be allowed to own a gun again? I'm pretty sure that is a felony here.....
 
Nathan,
I'll take you word for it that it's a felony, but the disqualification from my private proposal applies to felonies involving violent crimes.

There are alot of felonies that don't. I don't have a list but it certainly would included someone who has served time for armed robbery. If the state permits it, so be it. But, I wouldn't give the person a gun and pay for training and a carry permit. You can, but not me.
 
glh17 said:
So these states allow purchase and carry to absolutely anybody including all types of convicted felons, people with a history of mental problems, and kids?
Click to expand...
I have no idea if those states would allow sales to felons but, since federal law prohibits that anyway, it doesn't really matter what any state does or does not allow in that regard.
 
IMHO: There should be no "prohibited persons". Why? Because you are telling that person, and society, his life is not worth defending as you have removed the means for him to self-defense.

If a person is that dangerous to society that he should not be able to possess the means of self defense, he should not be free in society. If he can move freely in society he should be able to defend his own life.

If we believe that all human life has equal value, I cannot see how a free man should not be able to defend it.
 
Louisiana Ballot Initiative

In Louisiana "the people" were asked to vote on a ballot initiative regarding the "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. The question was whether "strict scrutiny" should apply to the 2nd Amendment. By overwhelming majority the ballot passed and "strict scrutiny" is now being applied to the 2nd Amendment in Louisiana. A Louisiana appellate court has recently ruled that this means that "some" convicted felons have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. (I am not sure what "some" felons means.) They remain citizens. And to take away their "fundamental right" requires taking away their citizenship. Something there is no lawful way to do. So, as long as they remain citizens they CANNOT lose their 2nd Amendment rights. While they are in jail they do not have access to weapons (unless the guards are otherwise preoccupied). As soon as they are released from jail they can acquire a gun, just like every other citizen. This speaks to the notion of "punishment" and the issue of what a sufficient sentence for a crime is and also whether a man can continue to be "punished" after serving his adjudicated sentence. It changes the liberal minded view of what punishment should be and what prison "reform" really means.

It remains to be seen if this ruling will hold up even in Louisiana. I am unaware of any other state accepting strict scrutiny with respect to the 2nd Amendment. (Based on the recent spate of spying accusations I have my doubts about strict scrutiny being applied even to the 1st Amendment.) The judge in this case truly stood up for liberty and the Constitution. I expect him to be removed ASAP.

I'd like to refer you to Federalist Letter #84 regarding the government's authority to "regulate" arms under the 2nd Amendment. Alex Hamilton stated quite clearly & unequivocally in this Federalist Letter that no amendment contained in the Bill of Rights was intended to give the government any authority to regulate anything. The only regulatory authority the government has is what is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution. If no regulatory authority is specifically enumerated it simply doesn't exist. Alex states quite clearly that neither the Constitution nor the 2nd Amendment grant any authority to regulate or permit weapons. None. Check it out. (Note that despite these clearly written statements from the authors of the Constitution no Court will honor their oath to protect and defend said Constitution - Louisiana Appellate Court not withstanding for the moment.)

The problem lies not in the words & documents of our forefathers but in the failures we place into office who dispute OUR authority. It is these failures we need to eliminate if we are to restore our own liberty. Our liberty hasn't been taken away from us by force (yet, stay tuned) we have simply given it away without any semblance of a fight. If we are unwilling to protect our own freedoms I promise you they will quickly be usurped by willing tyrants. Uncle Tom Jefferson warned us specifically about this inevitability in the Declaration.
 
rts99 said:
...A Louisiana appellate court has recently ruled that this means that "some" convicted felons have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. (I am not sure what "some" felons means.)...
Click to expand...
Provide a citation to the case please so that we can verify if your interpretation is correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top