Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
There’s Gun Control in the Second Amendment?
Well, the President of the United States told us this week, that:
“No amendment, no amendment to the Constitution is absolute,” he said. “You can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded movie theater — recall a freedom of speech. From the very beginning, you couldn’t own any weapon you wanted to own. From the very beginning that the Second Amendment existed, certain people weren’t allowed to have weapons.”
We need to cut our President some slack, as he suffers from advancing dementia. If I recall correctly, the text of the Second Amendment reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Now, the plain text of the amendment looks pretty straightforward to me. I do not see any mention whatsoever in the Amendment about “weapons”, types of weapons, or who should be allowed to own any particular type of weapon. I do see, however, the words “Shall Not Be Infringed”. That says to me that the rights of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be limited by the government (at least by the Federal government). The definition of the word “infringe” is “act so as to limit or undermine” something, so the Founders’ intentions were quite clear when they wrote this amendment to our Constitution.
To my way of thinking, there is a chance that the federal “background check” system would infringe on the People’s right to keep and bear arms. I’m not a constitutional scholar, but that’s what it looks like to me.
In any case, our demented President is dead wrong about the Second Amendment allowing “certain people to not have weapons”.
There is no Gun Control in the Second Amendment. [for that matter, most types of modern guns hadn’t even been invented in the 1790s. The rifle was a new thing, and most soldiers had muskets]
[originally posted at RushBabe49.com]
Published in Guns
Actually if I recall correctly the first “real” machine guns, i.e. Gatling guns, were purchased privately by union officers to equip their units. The real limitation on acquiring Ordnance as opposed to small arms was the expense of it and the practicality of it. Most people didn’t need a cannon. If you were in shipping and had to go on an ocean going trip you probably bought several of them. Likewise a town might band together and buy one for the defense of the community, or a wealthy captain in the militia might buy some to equip his units, I don’t really think that anyone prior to the civil war thought it was illegal or illegitimate for someone to own such a thing, just impractical.
If I remember correctly most of our gun limitation laws basically came in after WWI. All those veterans from WWI 1910s added to the violence of the Prohibition in the 1920s gave Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal for Crime” laws of the 1930s. They have been trying to take guns from the people ever since.
The NRA was created under Abraham Lincoln because in the civil war it was determined that many did not have familiarity with guns and marksmanship. That was it goal since that time. Its biggest mistake was backing the 1930s gun laws which is supported until the 1970s when it realised that the 1968 Gun Control Act made clear the government was after all guns. It was then that it added the “destructive devices” language that made bombs, mines, grenades illegal as well as many restrictions on age and felons, serial numbers etc. Since 1968 they have been trying to grab guns every year or so with a significant achievement to that goal every decade.
BTW – If you are interested in Second Amendment history, I strongly suggest the book “First Freedom” by David Harsanyi. You will get a better understanding of the US and its weapon history.
I wonder if Biden is planning to disarm the government contractors such as Constellis Holdings (Blackwater) which are routinely? Or is it just us private citizens not in his pay he can not trust.
Tales of the tortures
Used by debauchers
Lurid, licentious, and vile
Make me smile
The fact that the President of the United States doesn’t know this fairly basic bit of information is frightening. Then again, what was his class rank from law school again? Oh yeah, 76th our of 85. It’s amazing that back in 1987 it was shown that he repeatedly lied about his achievements saying that he had graduated with multiple degrees (he didn’t), that he was the outstanding undergraduate PoliSci student (he wasn’t), and that he had a full academic scholarship to law school (once again…shocking I know…he didn’t).
Biden’s Law School Ranking Not as He Said – Los Angeles Times (latimes.com)
That was from 1987 during his first failed run at the Presidency. What is more amazing is that he ran again (failed), and THEN won (28 years after that first run). By then, in true Clintonian form, his plagiarism, his lies, were all old hat and the media just ignored them (when the media thinks its their job to elect a specific candidate, they need to be treated differently IMO)
That isn’t completely correct in that any enumerated constitutional right can be abridged, but its supposed to pass strict scrutiny to be constitutional.
Does it serve a compelling interest of the government?
Is it narrowly tailored to achieve said interest?
Is it the least restrictive manner of doing so?
For example, take the idea that we don’t want a person who has been convicted of domestic abuse from being allowed to purchase a firearm.
Compelling interest? Yes, preservation of life is that.
Narrowly tailored? Yes, because it only affects those convicted of domestic abuse, though an argument might be made that there already exists a law against killing or assaulting another person with a deadly weapon, but the courts seem to think this is a solid yes. Another potential challenge would be that it allowed them to purchase say a knife, but not a firearm, but that is too narrowly tailored if anything.
Least restrictive? Maybe. A challenge would need to show that denying the purchase of a firearm by a non-domestic abuser happens or a similar issue to demonstrate that the law harms others.
That works, but I have always preferred the response that a person who thinks that has to use communication only via a hand typeset and printed letter that is then posted around town or announced by a crier. Anything beyond that isn’t protected speech.
I have run across those. Most do not view money as speech either so giving money to people like the NRA should not be allowed. It is amazing what people can get into their heads when clever people like Jon Stewart or other Left media constantly tell them.
I’m not sure how that disproves anything I laid out. The states can restrict guns due to criminal history. The states can restrict for any reason.
But of course they have no problem with unions giving money to politicians.
Actually they can’t restrict for any reason. The 14th Amendment places a restriction on the States to not abridge a civil right the same way that the Federal government cannot. Thus, if New York wanted to pass a gun control law, then the law should be reviewed using strict scrutiny. Alas, the courts, prior to the 90s didn’t use that and instead tended towards compelling interest as the only limiting factor as part of the rational review test. They didn’t even tend to use intermediate scrutiny. That has changed slowly, but SCOTUS is still fairly set on allowing broad restrictions on firearms and has repeatedly refused to review the 1934 NFA and the FOPA of 1986. Its fairly obvious that the NFA and FOPA, as well as the Assault Weapons Ban of 94 don’t meet strict scrutiny, well to me at least, but my opinion and $5 will get you a Vente Americano at Starbucks.
Democrats want you to believe that people who defeated their government with the aid of modern weaponry didn’t want Americans to have modern weaponry.
Well put.