Should EVERYONE be allowed to legally purchase firearms?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Second Amendment, when codified in the BOR in 1791, did not "create" a right; rather, it codified and continued the already pre-existing RKBA, which had been around for some time in the colonies. So, as is true for all the BOR rights, the codified right is just a skeleton, and the nuances of the extent of the right are the same as had been decided by the common law prior to the BOR. Well, it happens that the common law of the colonies of the RKBA extended the right to all NON-FELONS (note there is no mention of misdemeanors, and no mention of people merely charged with felonies)!! Thus, the 2nd amendment, though failing to specifically state this limitation, in fact does and should attach this limitation (in my opinion, and the opinion of honest and knowledgable scholars). THEREFORE, background checks are arguably a necessity procedure for limiting the right to those to whom it extends to prevent a compelling interest in public safety (compelling interests and a nexus of necessity or at least "narrowly tailored" are a requirement to infringe a fundamental right, such as the RKBA - here, I think the necessity is met for background checks, and compelling interest is also arguably met). THEREFORE, I believe background checks (to check for non-felons ONLY) upon all gun purchasers, is a provision which is NOT infringing of the 2nd. The stick here is private sales - gun shows are really just somewhat of an emotionally-charged red herring, but somewhat relevant in that many private sales USED TO occur at gun shows, and gun shows obviously facilitate such transactions among strangers. Well, a private sale, as much as we may hate it, IS, in fact, a loophole of application of background checks. I'm not saying I'm for BG checks on private sales (gunshow or not); just saying that if passed, I don't believe it's violate of the spirit and intent of the second. If we were to argue such a logical fallacy (that eliminating a true loophole is not necessary to administer a background check), then I believe the court justices, who are already probably not familiar with the history of the second, would use that as an excuse to throw up their hands, paint the second-supporters as unreasonable, and throw out the baby (the RKBA) with the bathwater. So, I think we must maintain an even logical keel, so to speak, and oppose those things that are violative, like most or all of the '34 act, the '68 act, the '94 act, Lautenberg domestic violence crap, etc., etc., and oppose these vehemently, without a shred of compromise, to the bitter end. Also, we should oppose backround checks on private sales in the legislatures (on the basis of states' rights to decide this, instrusiveness, etc.), but NOT oppose these in court challenges. Well, that ought to ruffle some feathers.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited October 09, 2000).]
 
If a felon is too dangerous to have a gun, then he's too dangerous to be in an open society. He'll simply make a gun, steal a gun or buy one on the black market.

Once punishment is served, all Rights should be restored. That's why they're called "Rights"! Restricting "Rights" leads only to more, increasingly onerous restrictions.

Habitual offenders are easily identified and can be easily incarcerated in the highly supervised environment required to safeguard an open society.

Oh, and remember, something as simple as a mistake on your income tax CAN be considered a felony. Be careful what you wish for... ;)
---

If a person is too mentally incompetent to own a gun, then he shouldn't be driving or voting and should be under the continual or continuous watch of a guardian.
---

When courts become infallible, then I will back the death sentence. Texas just released several convicted rapists because DNA testing (not available at time of trial) proved they were innocent.

Until infallibility is achieved and Jury Nullification restored, I have to slow up on the death penalty - as you would if you ever had to defend yourself from false "proof" in a capital murder case.
---

Gun ownership is a "Right" - not a privilege.

------------------
Either you believe in the Second Amendment or you don't.
Stick it to 'em! RKBA!
 
Futo's got it right. The Second, just like the First, is not absolute. The right of free speech in this country has always been limited by the common law of defamation, as well as by certain public safety concerns. The right of free exercise is limited, as well. I don't get to kill my wife even if my religion tells me to--but I may get to smoke peyote. The extent of these limitations has changed with time, of course. The courts are always trying to find a balance, and I think they've done a good job overall. Likewise, the Second Amendment is subject to a *certain* amount of limitation. My complaint is that the courts have ignored the RKBA, thus leaving it to the whim of Congress and the states to decide which restrictions are "reasonable" and which are not. In this environment, citizens have no where to turn when the cops come to take away their handguns. It's no different than living in a country where the Alien and Sedition Act can't be overturned. And it's a recipe for disaster. In the wake of these school shootings, I'm afraid the only thing powerful enough to stop the antis is an Article III judge. (yet another reason to vote for GW)
 
Futo: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the case during the founding era that convicted felons could still own firearms, and carry them about, on their own property? Actually, I believe this was the law in Texas until recently. (May even still be on the books, but superceded by federal law.)

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Hmmm, Bret, I'm not sure, but that is interesting - I'm not really an expert in this area; I just have the basics. Of course, Stephen Halbrook would know - do you have a copy of "That Every Man Be Armed" - does it have the answer? I don't have a copy at present.

Let me also note that, in order to infringe a fundamental right, the restriction must be more than just reasonable - that is more less the "rational basis review", under which 99% of restrictions are upheld. The middle tier is "intermediate scrutiny", and the highest thresshold of scrutiny is STRICT scrutiny, under which laws affecting fundamental rights are reviewed. VERY FEW laws survive strict scrutiny review, and very few of the 20,000-odd gun laws on the books would pass strict scrutiny, but SOME would - and in light of the historical basis for limiting the right to NON-FELONS, I think a simple background (instant) check may just squeak by strict scrutiny, even through my biased glasses. The gov't must show the courts, under "SS", that the restriction is NECESSARY to a COMPELLING gov't interest. BOTH the reasonableness (the compelling part) and the nexus between the law and the desired compelling goal are closely looked at by the courts; which is why most would fail - the gov't would have to show some actual evidence of the balance/need for the restriction, and the result must be pretty overwheliming in favor of the restriction (that's the compelling part). Of course, for the majority of laws already on the books, they could not, because of the very paltry evidence that machine guns, or silencers, or whatever, are linked to crime, as weighed against the individual right - no contest - and that's just the first hurdle. The gov't must also show exactly how the law is supposedly going to meet the compelling interest.

Look guys, this is the main point to take from what I'm saying: ONCE YOU HAVE GOTTEN THE COURTS TO BUY THAT STRICT SCRUTINY IS THE PROPER TEST TO BE APPLIED, THEN WE HAVE GOT IT MADE IN THE SHADE. Very very few laws would be upheld under this standard, and those that are, even 80% of TFLers would agree they're "reasonable". The key, in turn, to getting the courts to apply sctrict scrutiny, is to get them to accept that the RKBA is a FUNDAMENTAL right. This is the key to both the extent of the right itself (because of SS), AND ALSO the key to whether the states can infringe (because of the primary incorporation doctrine test also being fundamentalness). I don't believe, IINM, that the Supremes have every expressly recognized that the RKBA is a fundamental right, and I do know of at least one court case from a state court (the Supreme Court of Connecticut), which has said the RKBA is NOT fundamental - WTF?? This is the true heart of the battle for our rights - first, getting the SC to actually take a case (or cases), and then convincing them the right is a FUNDAMENTAL ONE (which the history/FFs clearly show that is WAS) - but the truth rarely impedes the Supreme Court - they're only slightly less a political body than the Congress, unfortunately.

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited October 09, 2000).]
 
Here's my opinion...under federal law, YES. Under state law, for violent crimes, NO.

I think it is more of a tenth ammendment issue. There is certainly a "right to life" and yet we execute murderers. There's a right to freedom, but we lock people up. Everyone's rights end where someone else's rights begin. A violent person carrying a gun or other weapon in my vicinity violates my rights by putting me in danger. There is no foolproof way to determine if someone is a danger, so criminal or mental records are all we can rely on.

To all those who say "They shouldn't be out in the first place!" I would probably agree- but we live in the real world, and they WILL be let out, and the return rate from criminals is quite high. When the sentance is up, the guy's let out regardless of how bad he is. Do you think "serving his sentance" is "paying his debt to society" and that it rehabilitates him? Maybe yes, more likely no.

Of course, I don't know how much good it does to deny them a legal purpose, in practical terms. However, a small percent of the population gives us most of our gun problems. Perhaps these laws can serve to imprison those criminals carrying, when they are found (legally and in accord with the BoR, of course).
 
AS far as stamping "Firearms Prohibited PErson" across a driver's license:

1) it violates privacy. The courts will uphold that.
2) can you guarantee they can't "lose" that license and get another without it? Will you hold the DMV responsible? Can you trust them to do that?



------------------
“It is criminal not to teach a man to defend himself when he is the
constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a
shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law.”--Malcolm X
 
If a person is not suitable to own a gun, i don't want that person to own a car.

(follow my drift?)

------------------
~USP

"[Even if there would be] few tears shed if and when the Second Amendment is held to guarantee nothing more than the state National Guard, this would simply show that the Founders were right when they feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights. We may tolerate the abridgement of property rights and the elimination of a right to bear arms; but we should not pretend that these are not reductions of rights." -- Justice Scalia 1998
 
Dennis:
Thats a fine fantasy you've spun for yourself. Unfortunately, you haven't followed the Mental Patients Rights movement that calls for more and more mental patients to be freed and put on the street, where we have to deal with them. Heck, we aren't even supposed to be able to force these people to take the very medications that keep these wingnuts on an even keel, because they are in denial about their own illness!
Convicted criminals sooner or later get put back on the street. You cannot simply keep them locked up. As I recall, something of that sort was proposed last year for extremely violent types and was shouted down.
I cannot see why some people here cannot see that some people by their OWN actions have given up their right to own a firearm by violating the social contract that exists between all memebers of this society. We cannot keep them locked up, due to a finite prison term, but we certainly should be able to minimize their access to firearms once they get out.
Violent criminals in possession of firearms does the law-abiding gunowner no good; the crook will go out and commit crimes with that firearm, and we'll all be painted with a broad brush.
I would rather attack exclusions like the retroactive misd. domestic violence exclusion or the dishonorable discharge exclusion. Amending those makes more sense to me. The mental health exclusion needs to be firmed up to specific diagnoses; so that simply complaining of stress to a shrink isn't used to exclude you someday.
 
Good point. It is too easy to fall into absolutist views and not look at some simple fixes of the details.

Let the guy right out of the mental institution start building a 105 mm on his front lawn next to you.
 
Let the violent felon serve out his sentence ( all of it ) and restore his full rights when he/she ( I hate that term! ) is released. If recidivism occurs ( in an armed society ), the non-learner will eventually " Darwin out" or be returned to prison for a true Life Sentence.
crankshaft
paranoia: the only true sanity
 
Ruger,

In your post you state:

JIMPEEL-you dont want the bill of rights to be amended to be legislative fiats??
Where have you been the past 20 years??That is what guncontrol is allll about legislating away our freedoms in the name of making us and the children safer and
supposedly restricting criminals by passing those same laws.

The passing of Constitutional Amendment by legislative fiat is exactly what has been happening and that is my point. There is a very finely written set of instructions contained within the body of the Constitutions that sets the standards by which that document may be changed. These clowns we send to DC simply choose to ignore them.

J


------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Here's the rub in the debate on firearms. If a drunk driver gets in a wreck with death resulting, he is immediately eligible to apply for a license to drive and to own and drive a car upon his release from jail. Hell, if his sentence is short enough he may still have a lawful license when he walks out.

If he offends again with death resulting, he is still eligible to apply for a license and own and drive a car.

Driving is supposed to be a "privilege".

Owning a firearm is supposed to be a "right".

The difference is that the drunk driving felon can still own a car but he cannot own a firearm.

Go figure.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
If you're fighting for the second amendment, a life or death struggle at present, do you want or need the burden of defending the "right" of violent felons and mental patients to own firearms? Not me. Just being pragmatic.
 
Last time I checked, it was illegal to murder someone. Has this changed?

Let me get all of this straight. An ex-felon is not allowed by law to have a firearm because it is assumed he could then use the firearm to kill someone. Well, it's already illegal to murder, yet a law against murder doesn't stop the act whether the person has a firearm or not.

I still don't see how a person who has, for example, stolen a large sum of money, not using any violence, and has served his sentence is some kind of danger to society if he has a firearm after he is released.

No, I don't think violent felons and the mentally disturbed should have firearms. But, I know the law won't stop them and will only make it more difficult for everyone else to obtain and possess them. Many of the anti-gun crowd would consider almost all gun owners "mentally disturbed".
 
So should all the non compliant people in the PRK who choose not to register be banned from owning firearms since they are getting very near felony status? Or was the whole point in not registering them in the first place so you dont loose them?
I guess they are pretty smart as they have it working both ways eh?
 
This was a very good discussion; my thanks to all who participated. Feel free to start a new thread on this topic.

110K. Closed.


------------------
RKBA!
"The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security"
Ohio Constitution, Article I, Section 4
Concealed Carry is illegal in Ohio.
Ohioans for Concealed Carry Website
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top