2nd Amendement Rights

[shinerbock]

Heller will be huge. Unfortunately, I think the Court will find against the District, but probably without requiring strict scrutiny and keeping the opinion narrowly focused on the DC law. From the common sense perspective, the DC law basically bans people from any feasible attempts at self-defense, and thus I think the Court will come down at least partially opposed to it.

You're right about the organized/unorganized distinction. I mentioned that in my original post but it may have been misleading. You're also right about the state militias around the time of the founding, although I suspect some would argue that the "ties" are stronger now than before.

Even if it were resolved that the National Guard is the definitive modern day militia, the argument that the Second applies only to those entities is still tenuous at best. It would seem ironic that a constitutional right to gun ownership would be so severely limited in a time when so many individuals owned and cherished their arms. Further, you still have the classic law school interpretation conundrum of whether the RKBA is simply supported by the need for a well regulated militia, or whether the inclusion of the militia provision was intended to define the scope of the right.

I don't really think the right to self-defense arises from the Second Amendment. I do think such a right could be crafted from other sources, probably in a much more convincing fashion than even the right to privacy. I realized when I wrote that paragraph that people would probably read it together, but it was really just a stream of one-line supports for the right to gun ownership. Protecting your family in a situation where the police may not be available should be a right, but it is more a practical consideration for why gun ownership is essential. Frankly, I don't think many of us would pause to consider whether the Constitution guarantees us such a right if faced with that precarious dilemma.

I'm not confident we'll get that much resolution this year from Heller.

My argument doesn't have anything to do with what the answer is. I have no idea whether broader concealed carry regulations will have an impact on violence. I strongly suspect that it won't result in rise asserted by anti-gun advocates, but I'm not sure whether it will result in less violence either. My approach is more common sense, at least with respect to the more narrow subject of where concealed weapons are to be permitted. Why should students who can carry in churches, banks, supermarkets, gas stations, etc...have to give up their ability to protect themselves to go to school? This is a group that commits very, very little gun violence in all of the other places they frequent, why would that change if they were allowed the same right on campus? Not only that, but the arrogant advertising of gun free zones simply informs criminals about the location of easy targets. This isn't directed at you, I'm just stating my approach.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Even if it were resolved that the National Guard is the definitive modern day militia, the argument that the Second applies only to those entities is still tenuous at best. It would seem ironic that a constitutional right to gun ownership would be so severely limited in a time when so many individuals owned and cherished their arms.

Except, of course, that at the time of the Amendment, all adult male citizens were indeed part of the militia and could be called up for service.

That of course leads to:

the classic law school interpretation conundrum of whether the RKBA is simply supported by the need for a well regulated militia, or whether the inclusion of the militia provision was intended to define the scope of the right.

I think its going to be very interesting to see what happens in Heller, given the current composition of the Court.

In the meantime, I love the cartoon.

[RU OX Alum]

the "militia" as originally defined and understood were members of the civilian public who were not holding public office

[honeychile]

Let me throw this out: many counties in my state have mandatory weaponry classes in high schools, usually taught by members of the NRA. The students have the option of not going to the firing range (which is usually in the school itself), but they do need to know how to handle & clean a few types of guns correctly. Also, since these school districts are usually near where the Amish live, they are permitted to forego the class. One more thing I've noticed about these school districts is that drivers education is also mandatory.

Any thoughts?

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by honeychile

many counties in my state have mandatory weaponry classes in high schools, usually taught by members of the NRA....Any thoughts?

Umm, the school boards are deep in the pocket of the NRA???

One more thing I've noticed about these school districts is that drivers education is also mandatory.

Driver's ed (classroom & behind the wheel) was mandatory when I was in school too. Is that not the norm anymore?

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

Umm, the school boards are deep in the pocket of the NRA???

Driver's ed (classroom & behind the wheel) was mandatory when I was in school too. Is that not the norm anymore?

Driver's ed is not provided by the public school system in my area anymore, although it was when I was in high school. However, it was not mandatory. If you don't want to get a driver's license, there's no need to take driver's ed. Driver's ed is mandatory to get a driver's license. If we're going to compare the two, then the same should hold true for owning a gun. Mandatory gun safety for those who are going to own a gun.

I'm somewhere in the middle on this issue. While I see no reason for anybody other than military to have automatic weapons, and I would never touch a gun, let alone own one, I'm not opposed to other people owning them. Most of the men I know I have hunting rifles. If gun laws were enforced, we'd go a long way toward reducing violence by guns. Yes, it is people who kill people (if you want to use bumper sticker phrases), but a gun (or a bomb) sure seems to be the easiest way to kill someone.

It's a tough one and a complex one. From what I heard on the news about NIU, it was 90 seconds from the time the shooter began killing until he turned the gun on himself. I don't think anybody would have stopped him in that short a time period.

We face a real dilemma in this country. Freedom vs. Security. It's been emphasized since 9/11 and the Patriot Act and everybody seems to have their own personal limit on where we draw the line between the two. There's a middle ground somewhere, but it's very murky. I tend to lean toward the Freedom side of things. I might feel differently if someone carrying, with a permit, shot up my work place or my kids' school.

[honeychile]

Usually a gun permit allows one to carry a concealed weapon. In a perfect world - and why I like the counties which teach Weaponry Safety - is that everyone (except those who opt out) knows how to handle guns safely. One of the very best classes that is open to everyone is the NRA's Personal Protection Course. There is so much more to personal protection than just "putting a gun under a pillow", and that's the main thrust of the classes. That's why someone from the NRA usually teaches these classes, and they stress what to do before deciding to arm oneself.
Also, being licensed to carry in one state does not necessarily mean you're able to do so in other states. Some states have reciprocal agreements, but not all.

As I've said several times before, Washington DC has the strictest gun laws in the country, and one of the highest crime rates. When that changes, I may change my mind. Until then, I'm usually packing.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Let me throw this out: many counties in my state have mandatory weaponry classes in high schools, usually taught by members of the NRA. The students have the option of not going to the firing range (which is usually in the school itself), but they do need to know how to handle & clean a few types of guns correctly. Also, since these school districts are usually near where the Amish live, they are permitted to forego the class. One more thing I've noticed about these school districts is that drivers education is also mandatory.

Any thoughts?

My thoughts are:

1. This is NRA propaganda. Does this training mean they can now bring a gun to high school? Guess not.

2. Gun practice is different than being prepared to shoot a human if need be. But they'll learn how to safely handle a gun and effectively shoot the hell out of a board or hunting target. Yeah.

3. Drivers education should be mandatory. Vehicle accidents are more common than mass gun shootings and gun assailants.

4. Speaking of gun assailants, gun assailants who are strangers are relatively rare so if that's what gun owners are waiting for--they need not hold their breaths. Gun violence resulting in death tends to be among family, friends, and close associates that people spend a substantial amount of time with. Thus, another reason why people shoot up their own places of employment and schools. But also why many law abiding citizens do not want to increase the gun access of nonsecurity officials in places of employment and schools.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Thus, another reason why people shoot up their own places of employment and schools. But also why many law abiding citizens do not want to increase the gun access of nonsecurity officials in places of employment and schools.

Increased gun access? Seriously, how many people do you think would legally carry to work AND THEN decide to kill everyone in their office? Do you honestly believe these gun free zones are keeping this from happening?

Training is the best we can do. If you think your average police officer is that much more prepared than your experienced and avid firearms enthusiast, you're sorely mistaken.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Increased gun access? Seriously, how many people do you think would legally carry to work AND THEN decide to kill everyone in their office? Do you honestly believe these gun free zones are keeping this from happening?

We've had this discussion already.

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Training is the best we can do. If you think your average police officer is that much more prepared than your experienced and avid firearms enthusiast, you're sorely mistaken.

"Avid firearms enthusiast" sounds fun as a hobby that you leave outside of work and school.

[DGTess]

Originally Posted by honeychile

Let me throw this out: many counties in my state have mandatory weaponry classes in high schools, usually taught by members of the NRA. The students have the option of not going to the firing range (which is usually in the school itself), but they do need to know how to handle & clean a few types of guns correctly. Also, since these school districts are usually near where the Amish live, they are permitted to forego the class. One more thing I've noticed about these school districts is that drivers education is also mandatory.

Any thoughts?

The NRA has, because of its mission, developed an outstanding firearms safety program and an outstanding shooter education program. Just because they come from the NRA doesn't make them bad.

I do believe that students and/or their parents MUST have the right to opt out. Still, just as a student is taught very young that improper use of cars can be deadly - you don't stand in front of a moving car, you don't get behind the wheel without instruction, you don't touch a hot engine - so too should a student be taught that the improper use of guns can be deadly.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

the "militia" as originally defined and understood were members of the civilian public who were not holding public office

And who could be called into military service.