Supreme Court to weigh whether 2nd Amendment gives citizens right to carry in public

boing
125

As with a lot of white supremacist rhetoric, it became very coded and dog-whistled in an Atwater-esque way after the 1970s, until the NRA emboldened people to once again be open with their racism.* In the gun-control debate, for example, ammosexuals who wanted to appear reasonable would talk about “urban violence” being the real problem or attributing far lower rates of shooting deaths in other Western countries to their supposedly being more “homogeneous”. At least one person of the sort described by @VeronicaConner above used to deploy both of these racist (and absurdly baseless) talking points on this BBS, until the mods and community here made it clear to him that continuing to do so would result in a ban.

[* we can blame Biff for emboldening tens of millions of people, but the NRA was already laying the groundwork a decade earlier, pulling things straight from the Der Sturmer style guide.

]

6 Likes
126

Acting as clockwork automata, using strictly designed patterns of movements in order to act out God’s design.

2 Likes
127
2 Likes
128

That way lies chaos. If there is no Constitutional backstop to regulate firearms, then how can we deny them to kindergarteners in school? Or prisoners in prison?

Of course the “regulate” in the 2A means regulation. Both in the past (the founders weren’t perfect but they also weren’t idiots) and in the here and now.

Once you accept that some regulation is mandated by the Constitution, it’s simply a negotiation of where the interest of the public lies. That can mean very little regulation or very strict regulation or anything in between.

People who make the argument that the 2A prohibits any regulation of firearms are ignoring the very fabric of our reality.

10 Likes
129

Or every other right in the bill of rights. Freedom of speech isn’t unlimited - you can be sued for false statements of fact, and imprisoned for incitement and other criminal speech. The freedom from searches is limited. Freedom of religion is limited - you can’t shoot people just because your religion says to do so (well, that may change under the current supreme court, and I wish I was kidding, but they really are voting for primacy of religious rights over other rights.)

7 Likes
130

sorry, not sorry

7 Likes
131

Maybe this is what the framers intended by “well regulated militia”. “You can’t be any geek off the street. You gotta be handy with the steel, if you know what I mean”

/s because of course.

5 Likes
132

Fuck what the framers intended. They made more than a few mistakes. This obsession with appealing to a divine power “the framers” is insane.

Ban guns.

5 Likes
133

True - but does that mean that is the only justification for it?

That too is my understanding for the clause mentioning the militia.

Which “tortured interpretation”? That it doesn’t apply to JUST a militia? I don’t want to waste time reply to something you aren’t saying.

Totally agree.

I don’t agree for the most part, but one could cite examples that fit your point.

IIRC you have made this point before. I really don’t understand the black and white thinking that it must mean “a thoroughly governed militia”, or else there can’t be any laws about restricting guns.

First off, I don’t think I have heard a pro-2nd Amendment argument saying that “regulated” doesn’t mean laws and government, so that means you can’t pass any laws limiting firearms. I don’t claim to know every yahoo out there, but if anyone is saying that, they are wrong.

There are some who simply spout off, “Shall not be infringed.”, but, again, laws and restrictions is not necessarily infringement.

How does a law or executive order dictating who or where one can conceal carry, or which guns I can import, or how many bullets a magazine can hold have to do with regulating the Militia? It doesn’t, does it? So I am not sure why the insistence that one must be able to “well regulate” a militia, or there can be no gun laws. Furthermore, most laws affecting firearms don’t affect militias at all. Heck, modern militias (National Guard) have fully automatic rifles and explosives and they don’t have to adhere to the NFA of 1934.

Just like laws for every other right. There is acknowledgement that SOME laws should apply, but then if a law goes too far it can be challenged and found unconstitutional. And the decisions on those cases aren’t always consistent.

I’m not making that argument, though. Just like all other rights enumerated have some laws that prevent them from being 100% absolute. And given there are hundreds if not thousands of gun laws in the books, from all levels of government, obviously firearms are highly regulated. That is, as you say, reality.

But this has lead me to get curious. I just down loaded the Heller vs DC decision and will see if i can slog through it next week to see if either Stevens or Breyer spelled out that that “well-regulated” means “well governed” in their opinions (or something to that effect.) I know in their opinions they saw it as a collective right vs and individual right, but AFIK and recall from reading the summery in the past, they used other historical cases to make their point, not challenging the meaning of “well-regulated”. Maybe I will learn something that backs your opinion.

3 Likes
134

So much of this argument seems to revolve around what people want the text of the Second Amendment to say versus what the text actually says versus what the authors intended it to say.

If I may, I think that it may be useful to rephrase the question as “How bound are we by what it says?” The Constitution is a living document (and even the First Amendment has been held to have limits when it comes to yelling fire in a crowded theater or libel), so perhaps we should be asking ourselves, “Given that the Second Amendment is probably here to stay, what interpretation makes the most sense in actual, practical terms?”

1 Like
135

I have totally heard that. I don’t hang out on Parler, but some of my hobbies are also popular with right wingers and they show up on the webforums. People definitely claim that “shall not be infringed” means literally there can be no regulation of weapons of any kind.

Don’t underestimate extremists propensity to make extreme arguments, even if you somehow haven’t heard them.

2 Likes
136

It doesn’t. It means without the crack in the door that the predicate clause “a well-regulated militia” there is no ground for any regulation of firearms at all. Once one says (to be fair, as you have) that there is Constitutional grounds for regulation of firearms, then the rest is a spectrum of public interest. It really has nothing to do with militia, just whether there is a Constitutional opening, or even mandate, to regulate arms.

Which, to bring it back around to the original post, establishes that New York State has every right to regulate firearms within it’s boundaries. There’s no 2A argument to challenge the New York law. Even the founders wrote in great detail that this is within the powers (and responsibilities) of the states. If someone wants to argue that New York’s granting of concealed carry permits is capricious or even corrupt, that may have standing, but critically that is NOT a 2A argument.

That does make you very different from most of your compatriots in this cause. That is the only reason I continue to engage in discussion with you on this topic.

Which leaves us with the question: which firearms should people be allowed to own and carry? What limits should be placed on where and when? And, finally, and most importantly, who?

Because until we have that discussion, we’re just talking past each other.

5 Likes
137

image

5 Likes
138

Curious as well. Because otherwise I have no idea how you can rationalize DC vs Heller and US vs. Miller. They seem completely contradictory about the role of militias in private firearm ownership.

139

giggles nervously

4 Likes
140

It all comes from a quote by Karl Marx

  1. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens’ militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm

Early on Boog did try recruiting from the left wing, most libertarian-socialists saw them as the fascists they are and rejected them and I think the most of the authleft didn’t trust them either, but I could see NazBol types buying into it. Not that it changes the wrongness of that comparison, antifa hate NazBols too.

6 Likes
141

Agreed, the whole Constitution/Bill of Rights thing was a really impressive legal framework two hundred years ago, but then the Yanks let it go to their head and are loath to change the slightest word without arguing as though the opinion of a bunch of blokes who’ve been dead for centuries matters in any way.

The fucked up part is, if the 70 US citizens who were killed in mass shootings just in March, had been killed in any other country, the US would have invaded it by now.
With absolutely no regard for the laws or constitution of that country of course.

7 Likes
142

 
zardoz

6 Likes
143

It’s basically impossible to conceal carry more than two flintlock pistols. And completely impossible for even the smallest of cannons.

2 Likes
144

For sure the hard line stance is “shall not be infringed”.

Yeah, but I am not making that argument. It’s straw manning in this case, as no one is claiming that. I am also not going to waste time defending a poor argument even if it comes from a “pro” side. Not everyone on the pro side makes good arguments - including me sometimes. (Though if we are honest, that applies to other side as well.)

I am going to disagree that is the case. “well-regulated militia” is mentioned in various state declarations and constitutions from the 1700s. There are other instances of its use in the past where they were talking about viewing or the existence of a “well-regulated” militia and it clearly is in the context of a well drilled, working and armed militia.

We both agree that the government is allowed to pass laws regulating firearms. I don’t think it gets that power from the words “well regulated” and still don’t understand why we are hinging it all on that. Can I ask how you came to this conclusion?

Literally every other right in the Bill of Rights has little asterisks where laws have been passed that effects those rights in certain instances. I don’t recall the 1st amendment saying the government can issue permits for “peaceful assembly”, just that it establishes “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. Yet that is the reality, isn’t it. It says congress shall pass “no laws” concerning these rights - but there are a ton of laws that cross into its purview. Where is the “well-regulated” clause giving governments the power to do this? Why must there be one for the 2nd amendment to be regulated, but not the first?

Like I said, I am going to sift through the Heller Decision. It is 157 pages with foot notes and opinions of 3 justices. Maybe I should look up some of the older supreme court rulings to see if any justice’s opinions on the ruling bring up this line of thinking. I have seen just the opposite with the Scalia opinion - but if I could find this argument used by the supreme court then at least I would understand where it is coming from.

Well, I don’t know if it is technically being challenged as a 2nd amendment case or if that is just the headline. The Supreme Court decides what cases it hears, and most of them they pass on. So if they agreed to hear this case, then I will have to default to their authority that it is indeed a constitutional matter. If they decided to to NOT hear the case, I would have to shrug and say they didn’t think it was a Constitutional matter. They may even find that the way NYS handles their licenses doesn’t violate the Constitution.

We probably will have to agree to disagree in that matter, and that’s fine.

But in this specific case, I am having a hard time finding a good reason that ONLY Cops and certain privileged individuals should get to enjoy the right and no one else. It just boggles the mind that anyone is ok with that.

You don’t want ANYONE being able to conceal carry? OK! That position I may not agree with, but I will not argue against because it is at least egalitarian. (Other than cops, they are always More Special™) You want the license to include more requirements, such as more training, three letters or recommendation, or what have you - again, OK, as long as everyone has to go through the same process.

Like I said above, the cases haven’t been consistent. The Supreme Court decision REVERSED the district court decision in that case. So while us internet commando lawyers are bickering, big brained lawyers and judges also can’t agree.

But while Miller vs US found it to be a collective right and the regulation of a sawed off shotgun wasn’t a violation of the 2nd Amendment, I don’t believe they either used “well-regulated” as the clause that gives the government the power to regulate firearms. But I should add that to the list. It has been awhile since I have read the summery.

I have been told by many people: “If you go far enough left, you get your guns back.”

Absolutely many right wingers are fearful and despise left wing gun owners. But I do know many 2nd Amendment proponents who have the attitude that they will work with left-wing, Democratic, Socialist, etal gun owners towards a common goal. Oh and these same rights activists aren’t turned off by minorities owning guns - they encourage it. I am not familiar with some of the other groups you mention… the world is a complicated political landscape and I don’t know all the players out there.

I bet you could squeeze in a third somewhere, but fair point. I was just making the point against the glib comment that that somehow there were only long, unconcealable muskets.

1 Like