Nothing in the Bill of Rights has caused more debate, in recent times, than the second amendment. As written, it seems that there are no limits placed on private citizens. Others would argue that the words imply a well regulated militia. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens suggests that adding 5 words to the current amendment would remove all ambiguity. What do you think?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”
Your opinion please. Why can’t states regulate guns? The Bill of Rights defines the limitations of the federal government, not the States.
Good point. States should be allowed to regulate guns. Ironically most 2nd amendment enthusiasts support states rights except when it comes to guns.
States are allowed to regulate guns. The Second Amendment expressly addresses the need for regulation. It even uses the phrase “well-regulated”. The Supreme Court’s recent rulings on the subject, while minimizing (or expanding, depending on your viewpoint) the “militia” element of the Amendment, have taken pains to state that reasonable regulation of firearms is a legitimate state function. Of course, there is very little political resolve to impose reasonable regulation in most jurisdictions, but that’s not because the Constitution imposes any impediment to such actions.
Maybe local governments should be allowed to regulate based on the local desires, kinda like abortion clinics no?
This thread presumes that the 2nd Amendment needs fixing. The five words suggested by John Paul Stevens could be used to PREVENT gun ownership from citizens who are not in the National Guard. Given that some states and municipalities have already passed onerous gun regulations, designed in some cases to limit the ownership/use of firearms, any movement to add this clause to the 2nd Amendment should be viewed as an attempt to deprive law-abiding citizens of the right to carry and bear arms.
Six pack,
You might come up short if you based abortion clinic supply and demand on local desires. You assume that everyone feels like you do. I strongly suspect that isn’t true. In fact, I would expect all sorts of people who never considered abortion rights part of local politics to come out and vote to guarantee that right, even if those people never thought they would need to use abortion services.
Just something to think about…..
Oh boy!
Um…I’ll get back to y’all. This may take a while so I’m not just glib and say that:
The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed….shall be the whole of the amendment: Fixed!
Gotta go meet the wife at the finish line of a 5K
So anyone can own a nuclear weapon or an ICD?
I think if we amended the Constitution to eliminate the militia element, as Cargo appears to be ready to suggest, it would radically change the rationale for the right to bear arms. Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has taken an expansive view of what the “militia” consists of. Nonetheless, the language means something. Throwing it out would be a radical departure. Cargo also appears to want to jettison the Founders’ express direction that the militia be “well-regulated.”
Durned libs are always trying to ignore original intent.
If we want to discuss changing the meaning of the Constitution, the phrase “while in the militia” is a very subtle, but a far more devious, change to its meaning. As discussed in the federalist papers (#29 for example), all able-bodied men were presumed to be part of the unorganized militia. Given that the rights, privileges, and responsibilities of citizenship have been extended to all Americans, the meaning of the unorganized militia must now include able-bodied women.
For ill-informed citizens and/or duplicitous politicians, this phrase from John Paul Stephens would evolve very quickly to be justification to allow states and municipalities to recognize only those in the standing military and organized militia (i.e. National Guard) to have an “un-infringed” right to bear arms.
So even though this phrase does not seem like a very significant change in wording, it would completely re-interpret the meaning of the militia, thereby providing the rationale to disarm the entire U.S. population.
The entire population not in the well-regulated militia, I think you mean. Kelly.
Stevens’s proposal is at odds with the current thinking of the Supreme Court as expressed in Heller and its progeny. As Kelly indicates, the current thinking is that the founders, by referring to “militia”, meant the body of men who were available to spring into action to repel invaders or Indian attacks etc.
My problem with the Stevens idea is that it is unnecessary. There remains considerable ability of state, local and federal governments to impose reasonable regulation of firearms. There is certainly a lack of political will, and that is a problem. However, that lack of will means that his constitutional amendment is a pipe dream, just as, I hope, is Cargo’s proposal.
There will be several cases in the next ten years refining what constitutes “reasonable” regulation. They will arise from those pockets of governance not entirely cowed by loud noises from the firearms industry and its helpers. Some will fail and some will succeed. Then we will know whether there can be any rational approach to the use and carriage of potential deadly force in this society.
The total number of Army and Air National Guardsmen is now on the order of half a million, which represents a tiny percentage of the total US population. If the 2nd Amendment is re-interpreted to exclude those who are not actively serving in the National Guard, then that would be tantamount to outlawing the right to bear arms for virtually the entire population.
Maybe arms needs to be redefined. Perhaps there need to be restrictions on the higher powered arms. For example, perhaps there should be qualifiers. Kelly, you have good, crime free citizenship. You will be allowed to buy outrageously dangerous weapons that have the capacity to kill hundreds in a matter of minutes. You have also shown very stabile emotional health over a period of years.
Young Rosco, on the other hand, is 23 and has had several arrests for drunken behavior in bars. As a 16 year old, he and his other redneck buddies got in some legal trouble shooting out mailboxes along route 987. He would be disqualified from buying high powered weapons based on his own track record.
Maybe you’re looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope, Kelly. Simply require everyone who wants to carry around deadly weapons to have military training, be assigned to a home guard unit, be available for military and community service, etc. Thus we could have a vastly expanded “well regulated militia.”
But, in any event, there is ample authority under the Constitution for governments at all levels to impose skill, background checks and other qualifications requirements on gun holders, even if they are not part of an organized militia. Instead of worrying about amending the Constitution, or re-interpreting it back to what it was pre-Heller, let’s just get our legislators to impose strict requirements on who can carry. Of course, we also need to enact the Scout program of requiring all those citizens who carry deadly weapons to carry them in conspicuous view so we know where the weapons are at all times and can make rational decisions as to whether we want to be around both the weapons and the kinds of people who think they need to carry them to go to the supermarket.
If by telescope you mean gun sight, I am considering it from exactly the right end. I am decidedly NOT interested in strict requirements on who can carry. The lesson of Fort Hood is that gun regulations always over reach, even for the best trained people in the world. Strict regulation of firearm carry ensures only that there is ready supply of unarmed targets awaiting the next attack from the mentally unstable and psychopaths of the world. Given the huge number of weapons already available in the US, the notion that future limits on gun purchase/carry can limit violence is quixotic at best.
Those who carry a weapon around advertise their paranoid craziness. We allow a certain amount of craziness in the interest of freedom but I’m not willing to give up my interest in life and liberty just because Kelly wants to play with guns.
Instead of more gun regulation I’d like to see regulation of ammunition to reduce the danger to those who live near people with guns. Bullets should not have the ability to penetrate walls and should have limited lethality beyond 10 yards. Restrictions on ammo plus outlawing concealed guns could allow me to theoretically avoid death from crazy gun owners by simply avoiding close confrontations. Like Scout, I would avoid shopping in the same isle as someone with a gun strapped to their thigh.
REquiring open carry has the advantage of not impinging on anyone’s right to bear arms (as noted above, I usually go about my daily business carrying a cavalry sabre – no way that can be carried concealed), while permitting others who don’t think their lives are in imminent peril at all times to simply avoid people whose minds work that way. I think there is great merit and no demerit in this idea. Can’t imagine why it hasn’t caught on.
I think this is the most important piece of Justice Stevens’ argument:
“In recent years two profoundly important changes in the law have occurred. In 2008, by a vote of 5 to 4, the Supreme Court decided in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects a civilian’s right to keep a handgun in his home for purposes of self-defense. And in 2010, by another vote of 5 to 4, the court decided in McDonald v. Chicago that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment limits the power of the city of Chicago to outlaw the possession of handguns by private citizens.”
Before the decisions above that effectively re-interpreted the constitution and threw out duly enacted state law, there was no legal understanding that the 2nd amendment limited the state’s authority to regulate arms in any way. Whatever happened to the conservative respect for state’s rights?
Reading the reasoning by Stevens, he clearly is looking historically within the parameters of England’s “common law”.
The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.
I am having trouble interpreting in layman’s terms the nuance in law here. Scout, help?
@middleman
A series of Supreme Court decisions have applied most of the Bill of Rights to the states through “selective incorporation,” including the Second Amendment. As a result, the States do not have the right to forbid free speech or freedom of the press; and neither should they have the right to forbid gun ownership.
The first (dependent) clause of the Second Amendment provides the rationale for not infringing on gun ownership, but does not exclude non-militiamen from exercising this right. If the framers had intended that only members of the militia had the right to be armed, the 2nd Amendment surely would have stated that. James Madison was a pretty good writer.
While the dependent clause gives the rationale for citizens to be armed, the main clause could not be clearer: “…. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Only people who are looking for a reason to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms find the language to be “ambiguous.”
Kelly, I would be more on your side if you could figure out a way to keep the lunatics from getting weapons.
We certainly don’t mind infringing on the rights of anyone ever convicted of a felony. My problem with that is, criminals are going to get the guns regardless of the law. (At least that’s what the NRA tells me) So the only people who really can’t have weapons are people convicted of a felony and who have served their time and who want to do the right thing. The frequent flyers will have a gun the day they get out of prison.
Kelly, you got the “selective incorporation” part right!
States have the “selective” ability to pass restrictive voting laws but not the “selective” ability to pass gun restrictions that their residents desire. Interestingly selective…
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:
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.
One has the natural right to keep and bear arms and that right shall not be infringed: An armed, trained citizenry is necessary to the security of a free state.
The phrase is quite clear. Only recently was the meaning of the 2nd Amendment interpreted to be a collective right, supposedly allowing arms to only those serving in a “militia.” This is Steven’s interpretation. He used this also in the Heller decision.
Historically, the right was understood to be an individual right. And previous SCOTUS cases have referred to it as such, while not ruling on the actual merits. The first 2nd Amend. case came as late as 1939. The first federal law was 1934 National Firearms Act. States, before incorporation of the Bill of Rights, were allowed to infringe upon many of our rights. The 2nd was one of them. The history of gun control is one of bigotry and racism. That is the origin of all gun control acts.
Even the Dred Scott case refers to the right. Judge Taney wrote about the idea of black people having citizenship, “…..it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
Let’s discuss the clauses. The term “well-regulated” applies ONLY to the militia, not to the arms. Nor does it mean the application of more laws. “Throwing out the militia clause” would do nothing because the operative clause stays the same. Regardless of membership in a militia, one has the right to keep and bear arms. Furthermore, Congress has abandoned its duty to organize a militia for any purpose, relying instead on the National Guard. The Guard came from the militia, but is NOT a militia, being a branch/subset of the standing army. The militia is a civilian organization.
Well-regulated” in this context means well supplied and well trained. Thus, the citizenry needs to be familiar with arms. The 2nd Amendment does NOT “expressly address the need for regulation” as defined by modern usage, meaning more rules and restrictions.
Arms: As defined in the Heller case, it means guns suitable for a militia, in common lawful use. It DID NOT rule out automatic weapons but did not add that to the definition.
The St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in 1929 appalled the public. It made headline news. Other criminals were using weaponry from WWI. In 1932, the government was face with civil unrest by unions, veterans, and minorities. They were arming themselves. The Bonus Army scared the heck out of FDR’s gov’t. The Gov’t used Al Capone’s crooks as a reason to crack down on automatic weaponry. Of course, the NFA only affected the law abiding unions, veterans, and minorities….not the mobsters.
The idea that one would have a right to keep and bear arms while only in the militia is ludicrous. One does not have a right to keep arms while under orders. The only way this might be considered accurate is the fact that militia members were expected to own the appropriate weapons and practice with them, which is the actual case for militia. Furthermore, the gov’t could disarm the populace simply by disarming or disbanding the militia.
So, by Steven’s interpretation, only those under order to the US government would be allowed to keep and bear arms. And since we have no militia today, there would be no right to keep and bear arms. Personally, I would LOVE the Congress to re-organize the militia as first responders for emergencies and secondarily as a trained, armed force.
The English common law recognized the right to keep and bear arms outside of a militia for self-defense, not only while serving in a militia. Regardless, the 2nd does not address that. The militia clause is prefatory. Heller explains that without an armed populace, familiar with arms, there can be no militia. Especially if the citizens were suspicious of centralized government disarming said militia and thus the people. That is why the 2nd was put into place: To prevent the possibility of disarming the militia in any way or the disarming of the people. While people have the common law right of self-defense, the 2nd is a protection of the right to be armed in that defense.
As the 2nd was the last right in the Bill of Rights to be formally incorporated to the states, many state laws are now unconstitutional. The idea that this should be a state’s rights issue is also ludicrous since we treat no other enumerated right as a state controlled issue. If the 2nd Amendment is a state’s rights issue, then so is the 1st Amendment. Nor was the Constitution “re-interpreted” as there was no other interpretation. The only thing that changed was that the 2nd was finally, formally, incorporated.
“let’s just get our legislators to impose strict requirements on who can carry.”
Legislators and judiciaries are loosening gun restrictions. Voters are demanding that they be allowed to exercise their rights and are pointing out the falsity of the gun control arguments. Even the 9th Circuit ruled that there must be SOME form of carry allowed, whether open or concealed. The Heller decision stated that traditional regulations may be constitutional and that states can make such regulations. The scope of those regulations is now the argument.
From the hundreds of thousands resisting abuse in New York and Connecticut, to the millions of members throughout the 2nd Amendment organizations, to the ability of 2nd amendment supporters to turn out thousands for spur of the moment rallies in defense of civil rights, the fact of the matter is that the general populace supports greater 2nd Amendment rights. This can also be seen in the skyrocketing gun purchase statistics. Based solely on FBI statistics, there have 186,521,222 NICS checks between 30 NOV 1998 and 31 MAR 2013. 2013 gun sales hit a new record. The total number of background checks conducted for gun sales last year adds up to 21,093,273, beating the previous 2012 record of 19,592,303. Gun ownership is mainstream.
As for Scout’s idea of mandatory open carry….it’s the legislators that seek more control that disallow open carry.
“But, in any event, there is ample authority under the Constitution for governments at all levels to impose skill, background checks and other qualifications requirements on gun holders, even if they are not part of an organized militia.”
Please…point out this authority.
So far, the state laws that restrict rights are falling. Technically, there are NO qualifications needed to exercise a right. The idea that any that wants to exercise their right MUST have military training or any other qualifications to exercise that right is wrong. That is the whole point of the 2nd.
“States have the “selective” ability to pass restrictive voting laws but not the “selective” ability to pass gun restrictions that their residents desire. Interestingly selective…”
Except for the fact that there are numerous state laws concerning owing, carrying, and shooting, this would be true. Also, what are these “restrictive voting laws?” I’m assuming that you are talking about requiring an ID. Based upon the 35,000+ cases of voting fraud discovered in North Carolina, requiring an ID is not a restriction, but a protection of the right to vote.
Btw….IDs are required for all gun sales. Including private ones, since it is illegal to sell to out of state people.
Justice Stevens believes in collective rights. He has supported this view in both the 1st and 2nd Amendments. He wants to reword the 2nd to make it fit his world view giving more power to the government, changing the 2nd from a limit on government power and a protection of an existing right, into a limit on human rights and a privilege granted to a government’s employees.
Since a militia would be a benefit to society, and the militia clause states a truth, and the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right that exists outside of the Constitution and does not derive from it…there is no need to change the wording. Not even to my earlier glib statement. That statement already exists.
Yes…. I know that its long.
But much of it is in reply to comments above.
As I said, changes to amendments SHOULDN’T be glib.
I don’t think there was anything glib about Stevens’s proposal. It was very well thought through. However, I think he may be over-reacting to Heller and its progeny. These cases were remarkable in that they essentially de-linked the militia clause from the rest of the Amendment. However, in context, they stand for nothing more than that the State may not bar the possession of deadly weapons, including firearms, in the home. We have a long way to go before we learn the limits on reasonable regulation of firearms outside the home.
MY earlier statement was glib. Not Steven’s.
Heller may not bar possession in the home.
McDonald incorporated it and made carry constitutional. A state MUST allows some form of carry.
I see. Well, your longer input more than made up for it. Besides, glib isn’t always bad. It has its place.
If a state (or locality) banned the concealed carriage of firearms (other than for police officers on duty), required rigorous training and certification to carry openly, required registration of the weapons and records of ammunition purchases, required annual proficiency updates and drilling with national guard units by all those authorized to carry openly, I feel fairly certain that would pass constitutional muster. It ain’t going to happen politically, and it would be an extreme policy choice, but it’s perfectly within the constitutional boundaries of the Second Amendment. I very much doubt that the Supreme Court would even review the case if the lower federal courts upheld that kind of regulation. (for purposes of discussion, I’m leaving to one side whether any of those requirements would run afoul of preemption by superseding federal legislation).
A state does not have the authority to demand such training or certification. Such expenses would be considered an undue burden on the exercise of a right. Registration is being openly opposed now in New York and New Jersey and may be considered an undue burden as it gives the gov’t too much power. And requiring drilling merely to carry is right out. Membership in a militia is not required to exercise the right to keep and BEAR arms…so says Heller and historical rulings.
My point in putting out the hypothetical of a demanding regulatory regime is that the Court took pains to state in Heller that it was not in any way impinging on the rights of states/other government levels to impose reasonable regulation. We don’t know what reasonable regulation is, and I suspect it will take a decade or so to find out. However, the Court has recently let go without review some state level impositions on age, for example. My guess is that registration will be considered “reasonable regulation” depending on how it is administered. Also proficiency requirements, if any pols had the good sense to impose them.
That is true. The Court did not. And they didn’t because those questions were not before the court.
As for proficiency requirements…. I seem to remember the issue of required testing before voting.
Oh…but back to changing the 2nd and Stevens……
Even Stevens thinks that the 2nd protects an individual right. He said as much in Heller and if he’s changing the 2nd to negate it so totally, then the current version DOES protect an individual right.
WHY would a former SCOTUS judge so wish to infringe upon rights?
CS: the voting machine analogy doesn’t work very well. There are usually poll workers to show people how to complete a ballot, and if you screw up, or are suffering from a permanent or temporary mental illness, or are just physically incompetent, your ballot won’t kill innocent people.
Re your last comment, I think Stevens is saying that, because Heller says that having a gun in the home for self defense is an individual right, one would have to change the Constitution to put things back in the militia box. Rights are what the Constitution says they are. If the document is lawfully changed, the amended document would control.
@Scout
Not voting machine training.
Poll tests.
Stevens is saying that one should not have the right to keep and bear arms. You can’t put the right “back into the militia box” because it was never there. The right to keep and bear arms has ALWAYS been an individual right. It pre-exists the Constitution.
Rights are protected by the Constitution. They do not derive from it. They exist inherently.
It is also arguable that if the 2nd amendment was changed or removed, that might put the ratification of the Constitution in jeopardy. The only way that the states agreed to ratify was if the BoR was included later.
If one is incompetent, then they should be adjudicated and their right restricted, according to law.
My point is that the analogy to voting is flawed. The reason for proficiency tests for firearms is that they are inherently dangerous and can do great damage in the hands of incompetents or malefactors. I suppose one could argue that so can a vote, but the immediate public danger is quite different between one gun misused and one vote miscast. I can’t imagine a “poll test” that would ensure that a citizen votes safely. I can envision firearms proficiency requirements, background checks, mental health screening, periodic re-certification etc. that would improve the chance that the militia, even a militia defined as in Heller as the body of citizens armed to repel invasion, is “well-regulated” and that weapons holders do not cause more mayhem than they prevent.
But you are again stating that the militia should be “well regulated.” Thus all training should be for the benefit of the militia.
As soon as the Congress reorganizes the militia, then training can commence.
Until then, there should be no government requirements to meet to enable the exercise of a right. That type of requirement is subject to abuse. Places like DC, Chicago, and others have instituted “training” or other permit requirements that are defacto bans. The burden to exercise the right is too great.
Should there be training? Absolutely. Every owner should learn gun safety. In fact, we should have organized training at schools so that every child learns gun safety. Bring back the rifle teams.
It’s not a de facto ban to say you have to demonstrate competence in the use of the firearm you intend to carry. That’s just common sense. If the requirement is excessive (e.g., being able to shoot an apple off your child’s head over your shoulder while looking in a mirror), it won’t survive review. If it’s reasonably related to ensuring that you don’t hurt yourself or others, its perfectly within the ambit of the Second Amendment.
PS: of course, the right to bear arms isn’t confined to firearms. If you carry a sword, or a spear, there could be reasonable proficiency requirements for those arms also.
@Scout
The problem is that too many government agencies HAVE made it a de facto ban by making the requirements onerous. Also, any requirements would be subjective.
Who is to say what is necessary for ownership and carry? As for being within the ambit of the 2nd….I do not see any training requirements stated for the right to keep and bear arms.
Again….while it may be common sense…the gov’t has no business MANDATING it.
@Scout
I forgot to mention this.
I like your idea about other arms. Unfortunately, the laws say otherwise. It is common sense, but we can only fight one battle at a time.
If I can carry a gun, it certainly follows that I can carry weapons of lesser lethality, like my cavalry sabre, a spear or pike, a bow with an arrow loaded, or ninja weapons. The Second Amendment says nothing about guns.
The Second Amendment speaks of a “well-regulated” militia. The Court in Heller makes the point that “militia” isn’t necessarily the National Guard, it is the body of citizens who have access to arms to repel invaders and meet other emergencies. The Court also says that the right to carry is subject to reasonable regulation. Training is part of that reasonable regulation. Besides, who would want people carrying deadly weapons who don’t know what they’re doing?
@Scout
The problem is that the scope of necessary training is subjective, and therefore can be a burden on the right.
One does not need a requirement to be met before exercising a right. THAT is the key element.
All statements concerning “reasonable” regulations are vague and, in the case of Heller, describe mainly WHERE you can carry and prohibitions on people through due process. NOT the free exercise of the right.
CS: I’m assuming that my ideas for proficiency testing would be developed in the normal way and would conform to due process requirements. All regulation/legislation is “subjective”, at least in the sense that different people have varying ideas about how to achieve a given policy goal. But that subjectivity isn’t a bar to regulation. The legislative process works through the varying views and comes to a conclusion. If it is constitutionally excessive, the courts strike it down. If, as you contend, the right to “keep and bear arms” is absolute, I don’t know how you or others of that view could recognize even limitations on “where” one carries one’s sword or spear (or gun, if you insist). It’s an interesting discussion, one that will be held over and over in the courts, because, as you remind us, we now know that the “right” to bear arms is a personal right. However, the potential lethality of that right makes it distinct from every other “right” that we recognize in our documents. That public safety element, coupled with the amendment’s recognition that the body of citizens with access to arms must be “well-regulated”, suggests to me that virtually any regulatory scheme that bears a reasonable relationship to ensuring that those bearing arms are proficient, disciplined, and sensitized to public safety requirements would pass constitutional review.
I didn’t say that it is absolute. I stated that requirements to exercise it are wrong because gov’t has shown a desire to restrict rights. The government is no longer trusted to be “reasonable.” See the recent attempts in CA, CT and NY to infringe upon rights. Chicago was forced to allow the exercise of rights only because the courts were about to levy political penalties for their foot dragging. California is also being forced to allow rights due to 9th Circuit court rulings. We had decades of infringement before the Heller Case made it to court. We should not have to depend upon the vagaries and whims of the court system to defend our rights. If we prevent the state from setting requirements, then we don’t have to worry about it.
As for gun safety….99.9996% of all guns owners did not murder anyone last year based upon 100 million gun owners…to keep it simple. There are probably more. If you want to keep the nation safer by demanding proficiency, you would have a better impact by demanding that police increase their training requirements and holding them accountable for shooting innocent people. Cops shoot 3x’s the innocent people, per capita, than do law abiding non-police.
Your definition of “well-regulated” again, only applies to the militia as well trained. No such requirement. If the right is misused….there are penalties.
You speak of the “specialness” of 2nd amendment dangers. The victims of the Crown Height riots and Freddy’s Fashion Mart would disagree with you. Sharptons incitement were direct causes of their deaths. The victims of millions dead by those inspired by certain books would also disagree with you. And those nations had “requirements” that had to be met to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
I understand that you and I both seek a public that has proficiency and safety in mind. But if that was such a concern, why do we allow vehicles to travel over 25mph. Or not have governors limiting speeds.
It seems that you have a much narrower view of what constitutes the “militia” than does the Court, CS. All able-bodied citizens are the militia. And it has to be “well-regulated” to be a bulwark against invasion or usurpation of liberties. As it now stands, it is not regulated at all, let alone well-regulated.
As an exercise, I recently applied for a concealed carry permit. I don’t intend to use it, as I have never felt that my life was in any way endangered as I do my usual chores in the NoVA suburbs. I have made countless trips to Home Depot and Giant over four decades without ever once having been in a gunfight or having been accosted by a perp imminently threatening to kill me or my family – circumstances in which counter-use of deadly force could be justified. Besides, if I ever do have to undertake a life-threatening mission in my little town (hardly likely), I can always carry openly under Virginia law, so I don’t need the permit.
My point was that I was able to apply for the permit (and will presumably get it) without any objective check whatsoever that I had even fired a weapon, knew one end from the other, had the physical strength to hold it in my hand, could see beyond the end of my nose, had anger issues, etc. etc. This is absolutely nuts. It makes not the slightest sense that an orderly Republic of free citizens should have to put up with this. If the reasons this circumstance can exist is that our Constitution requires it (I don’t believe it does), then the Constitution is not doing its job and we have instituted a government among us that can’t adequately protect our lives and liberties.
I agree with you that law officers should be well-trained in use of their weapons. I would go further and say that it’s just as important, (perhaps even more so, given the judgmental flaws that almost necessarily attend their decision) that civilians who elect to carry deadly weapons be well trained.
I simply can’t follow your third paragraph. It makes no sense to me. Sorry.
@Scout
Actually, I’m using the court’s definition. There are two classes of militia. The organized and the unorganized. Only the organized militia falls under gov’t authority and is mandated to be trained and meet requirements.
The citizens are to be familiar with arms so that WHEN and IF the Congress organizes the militia, they are able to trained to whatever standard is decided.
Why would you need to prove competence when applying for a concealed carry permit? You are allowed to keep and bear without that permit and no requirement. You do not need to meet any training requirement to own said weapon. Carrying concealed presents no other need for such training.
The only need for concealed training is how to follow the assorted state laws concerning concealed carry. Personally, I don’t see a need for permit. If you carry openly, you still need to have the same knowledge.
My third paragraph concerns your comparison of the dangers of exercising the 2nd as opposed to the 1st amendment. Your premise is that the 2nd is a special case, because people shoot other people. My premise is that the 1st amendment is also dangerous. And the exercise of it can cause death, albeit indirectly…..see the followers of Marx and Naziism. See the victims of any inciter to riot.
The point is that exercising freedom is dangerous. And placing mandatory conditions restricts freedoms in ways that we cannot control.
Furthermore, you have the right to KEEP and to BEAR. SHOOTING….is strictly controlled and legislated. Exercising the right to keep and bear harms no one.
Unless a total idiot is keeping and bearing arms.
There should be training and demonstrated skill. We are talking about something that has the potential to kill or maim someone else.
@Moon-howler
Can’t guard against stupidity. We let them drive, be doctors, fly planes….etc.