2nd Amendement Rights

[SydneyK]

Since my opinions regarding 2nd Amendment rights are vastly different from yours Tess, I fully expected to disagree with everything you said. However, you proved me wrong... I completely agree with this statement:

Originally Posted by DGTess

Guns are not bullet-stoppers.

Exactly.

I think it's possible (not, as you've claimed, "likely") that some deaths (at VT and NIU) may have been prevented had someone chosen to break the law and carry. It's also possible that more deaths would have resulted. It's all speculation. We'll never know what could have happened differently on those days. All we know is that, on these two days in particular, guns on campus resulted in many deaths.

And I'm not ready to say that more guns on campus will result in fewer deaths.

The day guns are allowed on my campus is the day I quit my job.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Concerning the Second Amendment, most agree that the individual right to arms is guaranteed by the provision.

Well, we'll know soon, I guess. The Supreme Court is set to decide that very question this term. The question presented in District of Columbia v Heller is: "Whether the [D.C. laws] violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?"

10 U.S.C. 311 defines the militia as consisting "of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." It also goes on to describe unorganized and organized militia, in addition to the qualifications for women.

If not I'm not mistaken, the "all able-bodies males" definition in 10 U.S.C. 311 is, essentially, the definition of the "unorganized" militia. The "organized" militia is the National Guard and the naval Militia.

What purpose would be served by limiting firearm membership to militia members? The government and the MSM has placed an extremely negative connotation on the term "militia," leading to the presumption that these people are part of fringe elements seeking to destroy the status quo. If the militia referred to is the National Guard, as some assume from Sec. 311, I think there are far too many federal ties within the Guard's organization, essentially destroying the underlying purpose.

Perhaps I'm leaning toward strict constructionism, but I think you have to consider "militia" as understood by the framers of the Constitution. The reality is that few people today think "National Guard" when they hear "militia," although it is the present-day incarnation of what the framers were talking about. You're right that they think of the nut-jobs that call themselves "militias."

I'm not sure what the "federal ties" have to do with anything, given that the militia clauses of Article 1, § 8, of the Constitution, which was ratified before the Second Amendment, clearly give Congress broad authority to organize and call up the states' militias for the militias' traditional purposes: defense and emergency law enforcement. Likewise, Article 2, § 2, again ratified before the Second Amendment, makes the President the Commander-in-Chief "of the Militias of the Several States." If the underlying purpose of the Second Amendment is destroyed by limiting its application to the National Guard due to "federal ties," then it could be argued that the underlying purpose of the Second Amendment is undermined by the Constitution itself.

As pacifistic as our society may have become, the subject matter of the Second Amendment is necessary to preserve the other fundamental rights guaranteed to citizens. If someone kicks down your door at 4am, your security system and the efficient local police may be a moot point.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that because the Second Amendment speaks specifically of the "well-ordered militia" as the reason for the right to bear arms, the right to protect your home is not encompassed within the Second Amendment. Whether it falls under the "penumbra" of that or some other amendment, I don't know (although I think it unlikely that the current Court will take to "penumbras" too much), but I can see a constitutional determination that whether one has a right to own firearms for reasons other than militia service is (1) not encompassed in the Second Amendment, and therefore (2) left to the determination of the individual states.

Again, maybe SCOTUS will sort it all out for us by this summer. Maybe.

I don't have many strong feelings on the larger subject. I wouldn't call myself pro- or anti-gun. I don't own one and don't want one, but it doesn't threaten me if my neighbor does have one. What, I suppose, I do have strong feelings about is the simplistic arguments made by both sides. Neither banning guns nor having the widest possible conceal-carry laws are the answers -- it is all, I think, more complicated than the bumper-sticker arguments one sometimes hears. I'm glad to see your posts and the other posts in this thread go beyond those simplistic arguments -- it makes the discussion more interesting and thought-provoking for me.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by SydneyK

The day guns are allowed on my campus is the day I quit my job.

And you aren't in the minority.