Ever since the landmark Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller on June 26, 2008 in which Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion left open the door to open to some restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, both sides – gun rights activists and gun prohibitionists – have been battling over just what might be considered a “reasonable” gun control statute or ordinance.
On one side, constitutional absolutists insist that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is absolute, that there may be no restrictions on the individual right to own any kind of firearm one wants.
On the other side, gun prohibitionists – perhaps clinging to some shred of denial that the Scalia opinion was wrong and that there truly is no individual right protected by the Second Amendment – argue that all manner of restrictions are acceptable.
So the question now, as the country waits to see whether the high court will take a case that may determine whether the Second Amendment is incorporated to the states as a limit on the authority of state and local governments to regulate arms, what is “reasonable” in terms of gun regulations?
1) Should we require background checks on all firearms transfers, whether at a gun shop, a gun show, or between friends, neighbors and even family members?
2) Should gun owners be licensed and every one of their firearms registered? How frequently should these licenses be renewed (annually, every five years, or should they be lifetime licenses)?
3) Should private citizens be allowed to carry concealed handguns for personal protection? Barack Obama is on record opposing concealed carry, arguing that it could lead to more violence, not less.
4) Open carry is legal in many states, and there is a small but gradually expanding Open Carry movement. Should legislatures pass laws banning open carry, or keep their hands off our guns?
5) Should laws prohibiting private citizens from carrying guns in certain places including restaurants, cocktail lounges and taverns, courthouses, public buildings including federal buildings, public parks (city, state, national), public and private schools, colleges and universities be repealed?
6) Should we expand laws prohibiting concealed or openly-carried handguns in certain venues to include all public property?
7) Should we renew and expand the ban on so-called “assault weapons?”
8) Should restoration of voting rights for convicted felons be tied to restoration of firearms rights for the same individuals?
9) Should gun owners be required to store their guns unloaded and locked at home?
10) Should citizens be limited to one gun purchase per month, or should there be no limit on the number of guns a private citizen can buy and sell.
11) Should the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives be given added authority to inspect the homes of gun owners, or should the agency be abolished and the practices of its agents investigated by independent prosecutors?
12) Last and not least, which statement best describes you:
a) I own guns for protection, target shooting, hunting and for no reason at all; it’s none of your business or the government’s business why I own guns, what kinds of guns, how many or where I keep them.
b) I do not own guns, and will not allow one in my home for any reason. They are dangerous, only the police and military should have guns, and private handgun ownership should be strictly regulated or banned altogether.
What is “reasonable” to one person may be outrageous to another. How you answered the questions above may determine whether you should join the National Rifle Association or send a contribution to the Violence Policy Center.
Visit with other Gun Rights Examiners:
For more info: Second Amendment Foundation. Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence
Comments
I don't think there are too many "absolutists" out there. There isn't ANY right that's unlimited. Your rights can be limited or removed with due process. I would have NO problem with an Instant Check system for ALL gun transfers if it was run correctly and not used to make lists of people who own guns.
If any of the restrictions of the Constitutional Rights confirmed by the Second Amendment start to make sense, substitute the word "book" for "gun" and re-read it.
And if you don't think the contents of books have started revolutions, re-read your history book.
All guns are evil All gun owners are evil. Confiscate the guns and round up all the owners.
After due process, rights don't get limited or removed. You may be deprived of live, liberty, or property, but those things are not forfeit. None of your rights are supposed to ever be forfeited. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most benign and innocuous rights we have! The simple keeping and bearing of arms causes no one any harm. Even the most vile and violent person who simply keeps and bears arms causes no harm. The problem is use. There is no prohibition on passing law that limits or prohibits use that does not interfere with self defense. There is not one limit in the Second Amendment upon the prohibition upon government to infringe upon the right. There is not one exception allowing ANY government of the keeping and bearing of arms. If you think you see one, please point it out.
Woody
Wow - CommonsenseMan, be sure to shave your mustache into that little square common to your kind. You really advocate rounding up your fellow citizens? For what? Execution?... You dont this thats a little evil in and of itself? Maybe even a bit simular to some late 1930's events? -- hmmm -- check your sanity at the door.
Guns are neither good or bad it's entirely the use to which they are put and that's upon the user. A car is neither good or evil and yet it is used explicitly to kill many many times a year in addition to the even more accidental deaths it is involved in. Yet there is no "outrage" over "the evils" of automobiles when there are about %50 MORE deaths a year related to automobiles then guns in the US. Then there are the 1 to 2 MILLION (hard to get statics on a crime that didn't happen) uses of guns a year to stop a criminal activity, or over 33 TIMES the number of gun related deaths every year.
And lets really not go into the whole "Round them up" scenario. There are millions of gun owners who will not peacefully surrender their weapons and many many in the Military and LE will side with them if an order ever came down to confiscate private firearms sparking another revolutionary war, and we know how well that last one went for the ruling government.
I don't know about too many absolutists, but this one, Goddammit, can read. Therefore, he is an absolutist. The only argument I will entertain from non-absolutists on the second amendment is if they argue for restrictions which are absolutely prohibited by the language of the second amendment because they admit they cannot read and comprehend. (in other words, I will entertain a stupidity defense) , or they admit they don't care and that they have evil designs which cannot be realized until the people's rights are restricted,(in other words, I will entertain an enemy of freedom argument for restrictions).
It is not my fault if the rest of you cannot read or reason, but you should learn before you try to strip rights from someone who can.
It's not up for discussion. It's guaranteed. If you don't like it, change it. The word is "infringed." It's spelled i-n-f-r-i-n-g-e-d.
I just checked again, and while the Fourth Amendment makes allowances for reasonable search and seizure, the Second Amendment still contains no such provision for reasonable infringement.
Curious.
Infringe means to encroach, to invade, to trespass on or upon the rights of others, to hinder. Encroach means to go beyond what is ORIGINAL, proper, or CUSTOMARY; to make inroads. Was it an original law at the inception of the country? Was it customary for the citizens to have the firearms of the day at inception and throughout the first century of our country, and then some? Were there background checks, one gun a month policies? Can a background check be considered a hindrance? What part of infringed don't the anti-gunners understand?
The Supremes are a bunch of mealy-mouthed boobs. The Heller "decision" was a prime example of politics over reason. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "Unless the arms are unusual". It doesn't say, "but reasonable restrictions [infringements] are okay."
Instead of standing up for the Constitution and settling the issue, the boobs in black played politics - and screwed America once more.
What is a reasonable restriction on the second amendment must be determined in the courts as applied. Neither the gun rights people or the gun prohibitionists are in a position to determine what is resonable. The same situation applies to the first amendment. For example: many people say the right to free speech doesn't apply if you hire fire in a crowded theater. They will claim that that is a reasonable restriction of free speech. The reality is that you can shout fire in a theater with impunity. You can if there is in fact a fire. You can if fire is a word in the performance. You can if fire is voiced as a part of a demonstration. The first amendment won't protect you if you shout fire with the intent of causing harm. Based on the facts of the individual circumstances only the courts can determine if the First amendment provided protection. So it will be with the second amendment.
In general, the answer is "No" (depedning on how the question is worded) to ALL gun control since NONE of it works.
One principle of law when infringing a right is that such infringements must be PROVABLY EFFECTIVE, and since NO gun control measure (not even Brady/NICS background checks AT DEALERS nor the near ban on automatic weapons) has ever met this requirement they are ALL unconstitutional and thus prohibited by American law.
None of the CDC, DoJ, nor the National Academy of Science has been able to identify any (ANY!) gun control law which can be shown to reduce any (ANY!) of murder, violent crime, suicides nor accidents.
Brady/NICS background checks are SO WORTHLESS that they aren't even enforced on criminals.
Less than 100 criminals are prosecuted each year for Brady/NICS violations -- and the vast majority of these are so the authorities needed to arrest or prosecute a criminal but can't make the real charge stick, or as a "predicate felony" for a conspiracy RICO c
The function of government is to protect our rights: "...to secure these rights governments are instituted among men, deriving..."
When government doesn't protect our rights we are instructed to dump it: "whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it..."
The function of the 2nd amendment, therefore, must be to assist us when we abolish the government.
Allowing the government to say which arms are appropriate to abolishing itself is nuts. Thus, the --absolute-- prohibition: "shall not be infringed".
"All guns are evil All gun owners are evil. Confiscate the guns and round up all the owners." - CommonsenseMan
Start with the local, state and Federal police departments and military forces. We can't trust them either.
I find disqualifiers and registration insulting.
I also wonder why Dave suggests joining the NRA.
It’s the G-D NRA that Compromised made concessions that gave us these G-D disqualifiers in the first place.
“Shall Not be Infringed” was written as a commanding prohibition against the entry and encroachment upon the “Right” to keep and bear arms.
Plus I see that KABA has not changed their policy on posting. I find it interesting that a group that espouses freedom kowtowed to Brady trolls and anti-freedom infiltrators.
Lammie said," Neither the gun rights people or the gun prohibitionists are in a position to determine what is resonable."
Lammie needs to tell me whether he is invoking the stupid defense of his position or the evil designs defense of same. Pick one, Lammie.
If you had an honest understanding of the issue you would already know that the illegitimate question was answered by the founders. They found there were no restrictions on the second amendment right to keep and bear arms and that all such restrictions would most definitely not be "reasonable" since they would be infringements which were absolutely prohibited.
I get a little tired of people claiming "reasonableness" when in reality they are offending the nation, the law, the constitution and free men, such as myself.
I could argue that there would be a "reasonable" amount of injury I should be able to cause another before I am actually in violation of the law. Which is exactly the position of the "reasonable" newts.
I actually wrote the court jurists when Heller was being decided. I made note of three rulings which determined that permits for rights are unconstitutional censorships, or prior restraints. One of the justices asked Mr. Heller is he could be satisfied with a permit for his right. He answered in the affirmative. So, I know they read my letter.
Black Swan is correct. NRA Bylaws, Art.II(1) To protect and defend the Constitution of the U.S., especially with reference to the inalienable right of the individual...citizen guaranteed by such Constitution to acquire, possess, transport, carry, exhibit, transfer ownership of, and enjoy the right to use arms, in order that the people may always be in a position to exercise their legitimate individual rights of self preservation and defense of family, person, and property, as well as to serve effectively in the appropriate militia for the common defense...
Common sense man needs to change his name to Hitler. You know he confiscated all the guns prior to murdering about six million Jews.
What does registration and licensing get us?? Nothing. I have to register my car and be licensed to drive it as well as have insurance and that doesn't stop Drug Dealers, illegal immigrants and criminals from using cars. In fact, it doesn't stop crap.
Not to mention registration violates your 5th Amendment, so it doesn't keep guns out of the hands of criminals, that HAS BEEN decided by SCOTUS.
I have always taken the stance that all gun laws on the books are unconstitutional. I would also add that taxing under the guise of Commerce Clause is infringement and also unconstitutional.
The only time that a free man's natural right may be infringed is when their freedom is curtailed by due process. In other words they are under the control of the department of corrections (either incarcerated or probation) or they are institutionalized. At such time that an individual is released from supervision, their gun rights are restored – automatically.
Added bonus, BATFE dissolved.
Import the Constitution into a word processor and do a keyword search for “self defense”, “hunter”, and “collector”. When the word processor says “word not found”, that is when you realize the constitution meant, we are going to get “free B J's” from NRA members.
"All guns are evil All gun owners are evil. Confiscate the guns and round up all the owners. "
This is serious discussion. Please stop with the childish jokes.
"The Supremes are a bunch of mealy-mouthed boobs. The Heller "decision" was a prime example of politics over reason. The Second Amendment says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn't say, "Unless the arms are unusual". It doesn't say, "but reasonable restrictions [infringements] are okay."
Instead of standing up for the Constitution and settling the issue, the boobs in black played politics - and screwed America once more."
Yeah. Protecting basic freedom is "screwing America". Municipal governments should have the power to enact broad outright bans on firearm possession, huh?Any other freedoms you don't like others having?
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!