States' Rights and Gun Control (Inspired by the Sotomayor Hearings)

[backslashbaby]

I've been thinking about this one, and honestly I can't decide what my feelings are on it. That's also a separate question from what the legal interpretations of the Constitution are thought to be on the issue [that's where the Sotomayor Hearings come in as they are discussing it in depth).

But I've noticed that conservatives have been very high on States' Rights with their Tea Parties and such. So, if a nominee to the SCOTUS rules in favor of States' Rights, wouldn't that actually be in line with the [ostensible] Tea Party Philosophy?

How do Libertarians feel about States' Rights when considering gun control laws?

[Gregg]

The Second Amendment ensures the right to bear arms.
Therefore it is not a power reserved for the states.

But, just as the right to free speech doesn't give someone the right to yell "fire" in a movie theater, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can wear your gun anywhere you want - like your kid's preschool.
A little common sense should come to play here.

[Kaiser-Kun]

I'm all for people* carrying guns for self-defense.


*by 'people', I mean responsible adults who can be trusted never to use their weapons unless absolutely necessary, who have passed several psychologic tests and gun-handling courses, who have no criminal backgrounds, who will volunteer to help during a crisis, who have excellent anger management, who know how to asess a difficult situation with a cold mind, and who have passed government examinations to filter all the above requirements.

[Duncan J Macdonald]

The Second Amendment ensures the right to bear arms.
Therefore it is not a power reserved for the states.

But, just as the right to free speech doesn't give someone the right to yell "fire" in a movie theater, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can wear your gun anywhere you want - like your kid's preschool.
A little common sense should come to play here.
Common sense not withstanding, yes, you can wear your gun anywhere -- open or concealed carry. That's what "shall not be infringed" means. IMAO of course.

[SPMiller]

Like certain other amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment hasn't yet been applied to all the states. By default, the Bill of Rights applies only at the federal level, and the states are left to set their own laws. That may change if SCotUS takes a case and incorporates it universally.

This strikes me as one of those cases where a libertarian would ironically (and inconsistently) oppose states' rights.

[Don]

Common sense not withstanding, yes, you can wear your gun anywhere -- open or concealed carry. That's what "shall not be infringed" means. IMAO of course.
Bolding mine.

And SP, individual rights trump states rights. See those four words up there in boldface if you have any questions.

[Zoombie]

No, Don, its way FUNNIER if the Liberatians blindly cling to "States rights" mantra, even while states deny rights to minorities!

Stop being all reasonable and hard to disagree with, you scalawag!

[backslashbaby]

The way I understand it, SP is right (way righter than Don...neener neener!) The courts are split on incorporation, and Sotomayor is on the court that holds that the States don't have to follow the 2nd Amendment, because it's a Federal thang.

So, Don (because you're big on States' Rights), do you believe that the States should have the power to do what they like?

Overall, I agree with Kaiser, actually. And I am often big on States' Rights (except I think I trust the Feds more than my state's leaders!).

It freaks me out that places like DC can restrict gun ownership so much, though. I do think that every state should have the right to bear arms. Or no state (historically - not now that so many are out there).

[Zoombie]

The problem, imo, with states rights is that if you go states rights to the exclusion of federal oversight, you'll just get 50 bloated governments rather than just 1.

Now, the way its set up now is far from perfect. I'd most like to see a system wherein the states and the federal government act as they're supposed too: Checks and balances.

The States keep the Federal government from getting too powerful, The Feds make sure that States actually follow the constitution.

Its a balancing act.

[SPMiller]

The way I understand it, SP is right (way righter than Don...neener neener!) The courts are split on incorporation, and Sotomayor is on the court that holds that the States don't have to follow the 2nd Amendment, because it's a Federal thang.Yup. Oddly, the Ninth Circuit has incorporated the 2nd Amendment for the western/noncontinental states, and the other circuit courts haven't. Everyone's speculating that the SCotUS might take on a case to decide the issue once and for all, but I won't be holding my breath.

[Don]

Yeah, Zoombie's got this one nailed as far as I'm concerned. FedGov should be protecting individual rights from the states, as well as carrying out those tasks assigned in Article 1 Section 8. Last time I looked, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments haven't been scratched out or anything, just ignored by practically everybody.

[Paichka]

But IS the 9th amendment being ignored? It seems to me that things like the recognition of a "zone of privacy" first articulated in Griswald v. Connecticut and used to strike down sodomy laws in cases like Lawrence v. Texas...it seems to me that this is directly informed by the 9th amendment.

Just looked it up on FindLaw...the 9th amendment was mentioned specifically in the majority opinions of Griswald v. Connecticut. (Man, I have awesome instincts. I am going to be a fabulous lawyer.**)

It is interesting though that the 9th amendment is mentioned so rarely in Court opinions. You would think that the justices who favor a broad interpretation of the Constitution would be all over it.


**slightly tongue-in-cheek. I'm getting nervous about law school starting this fall, and I'm trying to bolster my confidence.

[Gregg]

We have a federal right to bear arms, but states can pass laws as to how you bear them. For example, guns must be unloaded and secured in a case when carried in a vehicle.

My state is one of two that does not allow concealed carry.
There's also a rule that you can't set a gun on a vehicle, unless unloaded and cased.

[Don]

You know Greg, I keep hearing that states can do that, but I can't seem to get that interpretation from "shall not be infringed," myself. Those four words would seem to be fairly easy to interpret. Guess that goes to show either the intelligence or the agenda of the type of people that end up on the Supremes.

[Zoombie]

Yeah, Zoombie's got this one nailed as far as I'm concerned.

Do I get a shiny gold star?

[Gregg]

Right Don. But legal scholars (not me) even argue over the placement of commas in the 2nd amendment.
Apparently it is ok to place certain burdens on the right to bear arms - for safety and such. It does sound like infringement, but apparently it is not.

Remember free speech is not always free, particularly if it conflicts with other rights.

[dclary]

Do I get a shiny gold star?

You get a gun.

[dclary]

You get a gun.


A heavy bolter, to be precise.

[SPMiller]

Don't listen to him. Ask for an autocannon instead.

[Don]

Infringe: To encroach or trespass on the rights of others

I can use a dictionary. I don't automatically assume nine old people in black robes are telling me the truth when they claim war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, and that 50,000 gun laws don't infringe on my rights.

[SPMiller]

Because with autocannons you at least have a shot of penetrating AV12, which is popular in the current metagame, especially vs. mech vet IG and mech Space Elves.

[benbradley]

The Second Amendment ensures the right to bear arms.
Therefore it is not a power reserved for the states.

But, just as the right to free speech doesn't give someone the right to yell "fire" in a movie theater, the right to bear arms doesn't mean that you can wear your gun anywhere you want - like your kid's preschool.
A little common sense should come to play here.
So when you're at your kid's preschool and some thugs show up wanting to kidnap the children, you'll be unable to defend them?

If we're going to compare it to free speech, the right to have it is there - the responsibility is not to USE it inappropriately.

[benbradley]

I'm all for people* carrying guns for self-defense.


*by 'people', I mean responsible adults who can be trusted never to use their weapons unless absolutely necessary, who have passed several psychologic tests and gun-handling courses, who have no criminal backgrounds, who will volunteer to help during a crisis, who have excellent anger management, who know how to asess a difficult situation with a cold mind, and who have passed government examinations to filter all the above requirements.
That just about reduces the people legally qualified to carry a gun down to police only (an idea liberals seem to like), and even then a lot of police wouldn't qualify for all that either.

And of course government examinations could easily morph into requiring anything (you're a member of WHAT political party? No, sorry, you can't have a gun).

[johnnysannie]

So when you're at your kid's preschool and some thugs show up wanting to kidnap the children, you'll be unable to defend them?

If we're going to compare it to free speech, the right to have it is there - the responsibility is not to USE it inappropriately.

A few little facts....

It violates federal law to bring a firearm within 300 feet of any school, public, private or parochial in the US. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, (originally declared unconstituional on a few technical points) which became the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996. Unless you're a law enforcement officer, you'll pay dearly if you're caught packing heat near any school

And secondly...the neo-cons empahsis on state's right over Federal always reminds me of the Civil War (you know, blue vs. gray and all that) Despite the many preconceptions about the cause of the war, the issue of states rights was the real major one, the one that brought the long-standing conflict to a head.

[Zoombie]

Don't listen to him. Ask for an autocannon instead.

Fuck that noise, I'm getting one of those Harlequin things that use monofilement wires to turn their enemies into puree.

[Robert Toy]

A few little facts....

It violates federal law to bring a firearm within 300 feet of any school, public, private or parochial in the US. The Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, (originally declared unconstituional on a few technical points) which became the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996. Unless you're a law enforcement officer, you'll pay dearly if you're caught packing heat near any school

And secondly...the neo-cons empahsis on state's right over Federal always reminds me of the Civil War (you know, blue vs. gray and all that) Despite the many preconceptions about the cause of the war, the issue of states rights was the real major one, the one that brought the long-standing conflict to a head.
So what are your views on Federal vs States Rights?

[Gregg]

So when you're at your kid's preschool and some thugs show up wanting to kidnap the children, you'll be unable to defend them?

If we're going to compare it to free speech, the right to have it is there - the responsibility is not to USE it inappropriately.

Apparently so. Your kid probably can't even take a squirt gun to school.

We all have the responsibility to use our rights appropriately, but the courts have allowed the government to place burdens on some of those rights. I was at a concert in the early 70's when George Carlin was arrested when he recited his "7 dirty words..." monologue.

Don't get me wrong. I pretty much agree with Don. The government has assumed powers far beyond those spelled out in the constitution.

[dclary]

Fuck that noise, I'm getting one of those Harlequin things that use monofilement wires to turn their enemies into puree.


You'll get yourself purified if you go around carrying heretic weaponry, Marine.

[Don]

In the interest of truth in advertising, can't we start calling "gun-free zones" by a more accurate name? I vote for "victim disarmament zone" personally.

In any event, the name should make the point that it only keeps honest citizens from bringing guns into the area, and leaves them at the mercy of those who choose to do otherwise.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Sad but true.

[SPMiller]

You'll get yourself purified if you go around carrying Xenos weaponry, Marine.Fixed.

[Paichka]

Oof, this is a sticky issue.

See, on one hand, I have guns. I'm rather good with guns, actually. Officers don't get to wear our shiny gun-shooting medals, but I'm an expert in my M9, a sharpshooter in my M16, and qualified in the MK 19 grenade launcher, the M203 grenade launcher, and the 50 caliber machine gun. Hoo-ah! (I once called in indirect fire -- from a Paladin -- onto a tank during training. IT WAS SO COOL.)

I also have a Sig Sauer P226, the .40 S&W version. So, I'm a fan of guns. I like to shoot, particularly on tactical ranges, and I'm absurdly proud of the little holes I can drill a paper target full of. So if a law were to come out tomorrow that said I was no longer allowed to HAVE my handgun, I'd be very disappointed.

Here's the thing though...I respect that the 2nd Amendment says we have the right to bear arms, and that right may not be infringed. (I happen to believe that the framers probably didn't foresee the rise of Mssrs Smith, Wesson, Heckler or Koch, let alone Mrs. AK-47, but meh) I'm a huge believer in individual liberty, but I'm also a pragmatist. I understand, and to some extent accept, the argument that if the "good guys" had guns at the sites of school shootings...say, Virginia Tech...there would be one very dead bad guy, and far fewer dead students.

I just have a very hard time believing that gun violence would be LOWER if we relaxed gun control laws. I think that the argument that "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" is overly simplistic...there has to be a happy medium between draconian gun laws and some sort of NRA free for all. That's my gut instinct, anyway. So I accept that it is the role of the government to set parameters for where we can and cannot exercise the rights enumerated in the Constitution...just as I accept that is the responsibility of people outside the government (to include those 9 old people in the black robes) to ensure the government doesn't overstep its bounds.

[Magdalen]

Oof, this is a sticky issue.<not so much snipped as blasted> So I accept that it is the role of the government to set parameters for where we can and cannot exercise the rights enumerated in the Constitution...

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

just as I accept that is the responsibility of people outside the government (to include those 9 old people in the black robes) to ensure the government doesn't overstep its bounds. Sorry, but the Supreme court is the judiciary branch of the US gov't, so it is "inside" not outside.


I don't accept the usurping of individuals' rights by the US gov't. I don't think that was the intention of those long ago heroes of the Constitution.

I do admire your expertise with handguns however, and I hope I haven't "riled" you up!

[backslashbaby]

You know, Paichka, I can really shoot, too :) What's funny is that I'm kind of a granola-girl, and folks assume I'll be very anti-gun. In truth, I've been shooting since I was about 6-7 [the country/Southern way, in the woods with Dad, starting with BB guns at that age]. It is nothing to me to see folks I know with their gun on the side table, along with their keys, or to hear that they are going to the range on the weekend.

This really freaks out other people I know. As if the guns are going to rise up on their own and do some kind of bizarre harm to everyone around ;)

I do think there are good arguments for incorporating the 2nd Amendment, and I do believe that the framers of the Constitution wouldn't be alarmed if individuals everywhere - regardless of locality - wanted the right to bear arms. With the kind of harm our guns can do today, however, gun-control laws seem like a no-brainer, though, imho.

[Zoombie]

I do think there are good arguments for incorporating the 2nd Amendment, and I do believe that the framers of the Constitution wouldn't be alarmed if individuals everywhere - regardless of locality - wanted the right to bear arms. With the kind of harm our guns can do today, however, gun-control laws seem like a no-brainer, though, imho.

Ayup!

History time!

Guns in the 18th century were, on the whole, better than swords but worse than bows. The deciding factor, though, was that you could train a rifleman in about 1-2 weeks and have him be ready to fight. A bowman takes YEARS of training. The reason why the English won at Agincourt, for example, was due to France being incompetent on several levels AND ALSO because the English had a ton of really good longbows. And why were they so good? Well, becuase it was law that every Saturday, all Englishmen had to practice with their longbow.

Improvements in agriculture and economy buggered that up something fierce as people became wealthy enough to spend Saturday actually enjoying themselves rather than doing what they were supposed too: Learning to shoot with a longbow!

But then a less demanding way to kill people came around: The musket.

Or...well, technically, it started with the aqubusie (or however you spell it). But, anywho, the art of war changed completely. Armies became big, uniform, and easily conscripted.

A musket takes anywhere from 1-2 minuets to reload and fires a 1 pound lead ball before needing to be reloaded. Course, the accuracy was abysmal and almost 70% of all lead fired in early gunpowder wars hit the ground and not what was being aimed at.

A modern 9mm pistol takes about 5 seconds to reload, has anywhere from 9 to 12 shots (to more) and hits what you're aiming at most of the time (If you're, ya know, within range and good at what you are doing).

I want my fellow Americans to be able to defend themselves from both crooks and bad guys...but does that include assault rifles?

This coincides nicely with the thread about getting an AK-47 for a truck.

Really?

I mean, yeah, the constitution is our most important legal document, but our founding fathers were SMART. They knew that we'd need to change with the times. That's why we kicked out that whole "Blacks are only 1/3rd of a person" thing back after the Civil War.

[Robert Toy]

Not that it's a big issue, but...

A modern 9mm pistol takes about 5 1seconds to reload, has anywhere from 9 to 12 shots (to more) and hits what you're aiming at most of the time (If you're, ya know, within range and good at what you are doing).

[Zoombie]

Well, I've never actually used a modern gun.

Something I want to change.

Yeah, I hate guns. They cause a lot of misery.

But NOT having them while the bad guys DO strikes me as all kinds of stupid.

So, um, I should kinda learn how to...ya know...use them.

[tiny]

Well, I've never actually used a modern gun.

Something I want to change.

Yeah, I hate guns. They cause a lot of misery.

But NOT having them while the bad guys DO strikes me as all kinds of stupid.

So, um, I should kinda learn how to...ya know...use them.


A gun alone is merely a tool, and a tool misused is not the fault of the tool. Guns do not cause misery. People do.

[dclary]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbHH5xZcVvQ

[Zoombie]

A gun alone is merely a tool, and a tool misused is not the fault of the tool. Guns do not cause misery. People do.


That's the bummer, ain't it? Without guns, we'd use swords. Without swords, we'd use clubs. Without those, we'd use rocks.