supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments pdf

I don't care about guns. I want a good force shield :)
The Chicken

Sleeping Beastly,
As I recall from the notes I still can't find, there's a section of the U.S. Code that defines "militia", and it specifies that every adult male age 45 and under is a member of the militia.

I suspect you two may be talking past one another.
Article VI, clause 2 of the United States Constitution, reads: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
But not every law the U.S. Congress passes is "made in Pursuance" of the Constitution, and powers delegated to the Nation are subject to limitations that reserve power to the States.

Sleeping Beastly, you're mistaken. The states do have the right to prohibit some things that the feds can't -- or couldn't if we had a Supreme Court with any shame at all.
I realize that this is off-topic, but I'm curious. I was under the impression that constitutional restrictions on legislation applied to all levels of government in the U.S. I'm having trouble thinking of a counter-example. Contribute to my education?

When I talk with ardent gun control/ban advocates at some point I usually ask them if they would be willing to post a large sign at their house declaring that it is a gun free zone. The honest ones usually say they are not willing to do that.

Paul, you're mistaken. States do not have the right to pass laws that are forbidden by the constitution.
Sleeping Beastly, you're mistaken. The states do have the right to prohibit some things that the feds can't -- or couldn't if we had a Supreme Court with any shame at all.
However, I can't see that guns are one of them. The First Amendment explicitly speaks of what Congress shall not do. The Second says that "shall not be infringed" -- the passive voice would appear to indicate "not by anyone."

This sits as a parallel to first amendment. While the federal government was restricted from establishing a national religion, the states were free to align themselves with particular churches.
Paul, you're mistaken. States do not have the right to pass laws that are forbidden by the constitution. If they did, the 14th amendment would have been completely useless.
Generally, gun control laws are passed because of a certain interpretation of the second amendment. The reasoning is that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on participation in a well-regulated militia, such as the National Guard.
Personally, I think this interpretation is incorrect, and that "well-regulated" does not mean "overseen by the government"; it means "well-trained" in the sense that army "regulars" are "well-regulated" compared with conscripts.
So what does "militia" mean? A militia is a muster of people who are called out when the military is unable to offer necessary protection. That could mean the National Guard, or it could mean the "unorganized militia":
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
Why is a well-regulated militia "necessary to the security of a free State"? Because foreign invaders and domestic tyrants will have a much tougher time imposing their rule on the citizens of a town when most of them are armed and can be called together to the defense of their town. Yes, explosives might be more useful in a military march on the White House or NORAD, but rifles are still plenty effective in fighting off an invading army seeking to impose martial law. They won't help you if an enemy wants to blow you all up from a distance, but they might help you keep your town from falling under an unjust yoke.
Personal protection against individual criminals is an added benefit, but not the primary purpose of the amendment. In any case, I hope the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution the same way I do.

Paul wrote:
The right to bear arms exists, not for personal protection against local thugs, but to maintain the capacity to overthrow the government ("When in the course of human events..."). This means that we ought to have the right to bear arms which would provide us the the capacity to overrun the government.
Careful, there. The right to bear arms exists is not a right granted by the Constitution. It is a natural right that is specifically protected by the Constitution, and we have that right both to protect ourselves from personal threats and tyranny.

With the Anglo-Saxon folk gerihten, the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights of 1688, as well as Christian political theory, the right to keep and bear arms is ontologically and historically prior to the federal union, or even the Articles of Confederation.

The several States therefore do not have the right to ban ownership of firearms and military ordinance.

However, it always seemed to be about infantry and cavalry ordinance, and not the crew-served variety. I would suggest that artillery belongs in "the court house square" to quote The Music Man. Under the lawful authority of elected county and township officials, not individual families. At least as a practical matter. The Englishry-in-Arms were to practice with the longbow, not the trebuchet. The crew-served ordinance at Lexington and Concord were held in a common magazine, not individually by the farmers and merchants. It was this magazine that the British Regulars were marching to illegally seize.

I was thinking if we made gun ownership part of ones religious duty ....tnen
they'd ban both.
I blog on exorcism, everyday evil, and psychopaths.
Nuns with Guns
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/index.php/00b9a680/6f...

Foxfier, as a police officer for 19 years, I just wanted to say that you are absolutely right.

I live in DC, and I'd really like to have the right to own a serviceable rifle.
AE Van Vogt said, in The Weapon Shops of Isher, "The right to own weapons is the right to be free."

A Dog walks into a bar and says: "I'm looking for the guy who shot my PAW."

My evidence for how wrong things can go!
http://www.snopes.com/photos/accident/gunsafety.as...

Foxfier, are you trying to be arrogant?
I am coordinated. I could master judo, taikondo or karate but I rather like watching it on TV.
I agree that training is a great thing, but dealing with a dangerous situation is quite another - in other words unless you're skill level is exceptional, it's a crap shoot.
I disagree that it is easy to master "don't shoot at someone when there are unwanted targets around." Baddies don't care whether there are other people around and you having a loaded gun pointed in thier general direction is not going to change that unless you are trained as a sniper.
Cars are inherently far safer than guns as cars are not designed, manufactured and operated with the express purpose of killing people whereas handguns are. Only when cars are used by small weak uncoordinated people are they capable of that.
I would take a good sex-ed course any day. As for basic gun education - leave it up to the experts who are larger, stronger and well coordinated.
A good sex-ed course and a whole lot of chastity would remove the 'accidental pregnancies' that plague us.

Alright, I rarely comment (or care that much) about gun control issues that arise. Mostly I avoid it because both sides, usually come across as insane. That said, here are a few thoughts.
The right to bear arms exists, not for personal protection against local thugs, but to maintain the capacity to overthrow the government ("When in the course of human events..."). This means that we ought to have the right to bear arms which would provide us the the capacity to overrun the government.
So while I am hesitant to disagree with Colin, I must respectfully disagree. We do need to the right to bear rocket launchers, large ordnance, maybe even tactical nukes. This isn't about walking around Washington D.C. at night, its about ending tyranny.
That said, it is a federal issue. The federal government has to abide by the bill of rights, not the states and territories. If a state deems it's in the best interest of the state to ban firearms, then it has the constitutional right to do so.
This sits as a parallel to first amendment. While the federal government was restricted from establishing a national religion, the states were free to align themselves with particular churches.

Alright, I rarely comment (or care that much) about gun control issues that arise. Mostly I avoid it because both sides, usually come across as insane. That said, here are a few thoughts.
The right to bear arms exists, not for personal protection against local thugs, but to maintain the capacity to overthrow the government ("When in the course of human events..."). This means that we ought to have the right to bear arms which would provide us the the capacity to overrun the government.
So while I am hesitant to disagree with Colin, I must respectfully disagree. We do need to the right to bear rocket launchers, large ordnance, maybe even tactical nukes. This isn't about walking around Washington D.C. at night, its about ending tyranny.
That said, it is a federal issue. The federal government has to abide by the bill of rights, not the states and territories. If a state deems it's in the best interest of the state to ban firearms, then it has the constitutional right to do so.
This sits as a parallel to first amendment. While the federal government was restricted from establishing a national religion, the states were free to align themselves with particular churches.

I had to comment:
http://sailorette.blogspot.com/2008/03/comments-on...
Picture's worth a thousand words, no?

Which part of "shall not be infringed" are people having trouble understanding?
"Who will watch the watchmen?"
A derringer is a girl's best friend.

SDG,
Armed resisitance of millions would significantly slow down a military round-up and slaughter of sheeple, allowing some degree of escape at the least, or at best overthrow contingent on the sentiments of the armed forces toward the despotic regime.
One of the arguments before the court was that the Framers did not intend for people's arms to become antiquated or inadequate over time. If the court upholds the Framer's intent, you might see wealthier individuals legally owning more advanced weapons, such as was the case at the beginning of this country.

SDG,
While that's a valid concern, on the other hand, look at how difficult it's been to maintain control over the terrorist cells in Iraq. Sure, the military has better weapons then the general public, but they'd be greatly outnumbered if it came to that.
We'd have our work cut out for us if we ever needed to defend ourselves against our government, but something is better than nothing.

This is a popular theory but does not stand up to real-world experience. And it becomes somewhat absurd when talking about handguns in particular.

The real hedge against government, from an individual-action perspective, appears to be improvised explosive devices. Few would view the right to possess bombs, however, as a fundamental right, constitutional or God-given.

Very interesting point. I've often thought, in the 21st century, in any scenario in which American citizens are obliged to resist their own government with force, the idea that private gun ownership is going to be a significant factor seems unpersuasive to say the least. Maybe that had some validity as late as the 19th century, but it sure doesn't seem particularly applicable now.

Statistically, the number of children that die from firearm accidents are insignificant. More children have died in car accidents than due to the misuse of firearms. Shall we, then, keep private citizens from owning and operating cars?

Textbook example of how to misuse statistics, since car ownership and car usage are both orders of magnitude more prevalent than gun ownership and usage.
It's like saying that more people die crossing the road than falling out of airplanes without a parachute -- very likely true, but it would be a big mistake to conclude that falling out of a plane without a parachute is safer than crossing the road.
Here is a statistical question that might be more interesting to pursue. In households with guns, which type of event is more commonplace: accidents in which innocent parties are injured/killed, or incidents in which intruders are deterred/shot/killed? (Of course this wouldn't account for whatever broader level of deterrence might prevent an intruder from even attempting to break in; I'm just saying.)

An excellent security system is a big dog who can keep the intruder occupied while you retrieve your gun from its secure hiding place.

Investing in a superior security system is not willful inaction,
"Superior" meaning, perhaps, "capable of administering lethal electric shocks."
'cause if it doesn't -- what on earth is the use of knowing that a crook is breaking into your house? You die just as dead, shot by a man you know is there.

Oh GREAT!!
Very small, physically weak and un-coordinated women pointing guns at us and each other!! That should help in an armed robbery in a crowded convenience store, not to mention the confines of their own homes!!
Posted by: Pseudomodo | Mar 18, 2008 7:16:11 AM
Pseudomondo, are you trying to be ignorant?
I am un-coordinated. I will never master judo, taikondo or karate.
However, with just a little training, it's quite easy to master "point and click." It's also easy to master "don't shoot at someone when there are unwanted targets around."
If people are properly trained, cars are far more dangerous than guns-- as silly as that may sound.
I would suggest taking one of the five or so years of "sex ed" that I got and put it towards basic gun education-- you'd remove the accidental gun deaths that so many here want to cite.

McFly,
Yes, I was being sarcastic. I figured my previous statement was so clearly problematic that it would be obvious.

//the fire extinguisher analogy doesn't seem very apt. One just doesn't much hear of people holding up convenience stores with fire extinguishers, or beating a friend's brains out with a fire extinguisher over a game of cards.
Hardly anything scary about someone carrying a fire extinguisher down the street.
Guns in schools? I happen to have some very reliable knowledge of the habits and general maturity of teenage boys (Having spent a few years as a teenager, once), and I'm thinking this would have to be in the "Not a Great Idea" column, for me.//
The fire extinguisher analogy is not intended to cover every parallel. Few analogies, if any, do.
There's nothing scary about people carrying around guns in public. It's done all the time, and has been throughout the history of this country. Even some religious orders had concealed weapons to protect themselves in hostile environments.
Also, youngsters have used weapons responsibly for quite some time. I did when I grew up.
People have used cars, household chemicals, ropes, knifes, etc. for murderous intents. Yet few have an irrational, emotion-based fear of them simply because most people are familiar with them.
Once you are familiar with firearms, you realize that they are inherently safer than cars, power tools, gasoline, and household chemicals.
I have always had great problems with the criminalization of mere possession, as mere possession rarely causes any harm. My concern doubles when it involves weapons, as it is nothing more than victim disarmament. Those with evil intentions aren't following nanny state edicts.

Press 'ignore' terrorist stopped by armed student
'Yitzak Dadon's apparently well-placed bullets interrupted a rampage' Posted: March 07, 2008
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.vie...
Armed students end rampage, prevent further injuries
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBVie...

Coming in late on this, but...
Someone waaaayyy above referenced Detroit and said something about guns being about as regulated here as they are in DC. I don't know the laws in DC, but a law was passed here in Michigan about eight or ten years ago saying that anyone who applied for a carry permit, who did not have a criminal record or history of mental illness, and who completed a safety class, was entitled to receive the permit.
There's plenty of bad stuff going on in Detroit, but I don't think you can make much of a case for it being the fault of excessive gun control.

While it is admirable for elderly women to find a means to protect themselves, it doesn't take away the string of dead children who discovered their parents' firearms and treated it like a toy, or took it to school to get revenge on those bullies.
Statistically, the number of children that die from firearm accidents are insignificant. More children have died in car accidents than due to the misuse of firearms. Shall we, then, keep private citizens from owning and operating cars?
Well, you might say, at least one must be certified by the state in order to drive. But does one need state certification in order to own and operate a gas stove? A child left unsupervised in a house with a gas stove, or an incompetent parent, could easily blow himself up, and set his entire neighbourhood on fire. Shall we then regulate who can or can't own a gas stove? Shall we only allowed trained professionals to own and operate stoves? Children can just as easily kill one another with knives, sticks and rocks. Shall we ban those as well? What of electrical appliances? Don't you know how many children an electrocuted to death each year? How many are burnt or mutilated by the mishandling of some kitchen appliance or powertool? Certainly, certainly these must be regulated as well!
And what better way to demonstrate that respect for life than ownership of a semi-automatic weapon, to be used solely to kill people (created in the image of God).
As has already been stated, Jesus told his disciples to go out and buy swords. One owns the weapon to use it if need be; he does not go out of his way to seek out trouble, regardless of whatever falsehoods you anti-gun people invent to the contrary. Your type seems to think that the common man is a trigger-happy lunatic, who is going to wildly draw his weapon at the first imagined sign of provocation, shut his eyes, and start firing willy-nilly in all directions, hoping that he hits something. This is not reality. Neither is it reality to imagine that one needs to take special training and certification courses to use a firearm--as in fact most responsible firearm owners have not, and yet somehow they manage to avoid going on killing sprees.
The idea that one should have to become state-certified in order to own a firearm is, of course, lunacy. People realise that weapons are dangerous things, and they are not inclined to use them lightly. Of course, all of your examples focus on the actions of a small minority of people--and you then turn around and seek to punish the majority of responsible gun owners for the actions of the few. But of course the people who are really dedicated to going on shooting sprees can still get guns. The people who may need guns to defend themselves--the law-abiding citizenry--cannot; at least not so long as they hope to remain law-abiding.
And how many people are raped, mangled, mutilated, and murdered every year, because they were attacked, and cruel laws kept them from being able to own the weapons that would allow them to defend themselves? You, Nick, seem to think that the reality of people owning firearms and using them in self defence will lead to a net gain in violent deaths--a typical leftist talking point that has never actually been borne out wherever gun laws have been liberalised.
All I see from you, Nick, is more of the emotionally-centred drivel of the far-leftist. If you are going to be a troll, then you really do need to try and troll harder.

I've often bit nails over the way our right to self-defense has been eroded in this country, and over the media's inability or unwillingness to discuss the facts of the governing law, the sociological data, and the evidence of history.
I didn't even know about this case until a few days ago. I've got a short list of the points I most hope the plaintiff got in:
1. In Dred Scott, the Court said that freed slaves would have the right to carry guns with them wherever they went, and that statement was listed in the middle of an enumeration of rights which the Courts have always ruled attain to individual citizens.
2. In U.S. vs Cruikshank, the Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is intrinsic, and does not depend on the existance of the constitution. That means that it's NOT merely a collective right.
3. In U.S. vs Miller, the Court ruled that legislation outlawing sawed-off shotguns was constitutional because there was no evidence before the court that it was a weapon of military usefulness. This is significant on two counts. First, they are of military usefulness, and in fact they had been used in the trenches of WWI to good effect; had that evidence been presented to the court, the ruling may well have gone the other way. Second, Miller was not a member of either the U.S. Armed Forces nor the National Guard; if the Second Amendment was merely a collective right pertaining to military service, the Court could have dispensed with the case on those grounds alone. Implicit in the fact that the Court said nothing about his military status is the position that it is irrelevant to the exercise of the Second Amendment.
I'm going from memory here, and I'm very frustrated about it. Somewhere I have a thick binder with copies of all of the relevant U.S. Supreme court cases and most of the major relevant State Supreme Court cases. I went to a lot of trouble to photocopy them from the bound copies at the University of Michigan Law Library...and now I can't find it. I also had copies of the commonly cited sociological studies (you know, like the one that supposedly proves that you're 50 times more likely to harm a family member with a gun than defend yourself from a criminal - which it doesn't prove at all). So now I gotta tear the house apart until I find it - I haven't looked for it in over ten years.

>>"Individual gun rights are a real hedge against the possibility of the government going sour."
This is a popular theory but does not stand up to real-world experience. And it becomes somewhat absurd when talking about handguns in particular.
The real hedge against government, from an individual-action perspective, appears to be improvised explosive devices. Few would view the right to possess bombs, however, as a fundamental right, constitutional or God-given.
To the extent the theory is true, however, the 2nd Amendment is part of the federal constitution, which did not purport to limit the power of the state and local governments, which are generally the ones regulating handguns. To the contrary, it was the states that sought to prevent a federal monopoly on military force. (The D.C. aspect of the current case may, in fact, provide a dodge for the Court to avoid addressing the validity of state gun laws, which is what most of us are interested in.)
Since the 14th Amendment arose directly out of the federal suppression of an armed rebellion, moreover, wouldn't it be problematic to interpret it as expanding the right to bear arms as a hedge against the federal government?
I'm not an advocate of gun-control laws, but I do question the idea that the 2nd Amendment does or should limit the states', as opposed to the federal government's, powers to ban handguns. It doesn't seem obvious anyway.

Thanks, Maureen!
But my point WAS... that if you are having a gun you had better be ready, willing and able. I think this is more safe for the general public that a gun with a hair trigger in the jiggly hands of an already admittidly small, weak, uncoordinated woman (or man!)

Nick, I think if we had needed security guards we would have had some. I don't think the school board and the parents were that derelict. They made sure we had hot lunches, and so forth.
It was a small school.
I would tell my Gun Control story, but it would be too long for the combox. I'll post it later.

"Wow. We didn't need them at my school."
Well, apparently you did need them, but you were most fortunate that a mentally-unstable drive-by-trucker with a gun license didn't pay a visit to your elementary school, you know, when you were raised in that small Quaker village.

"Only what do you do to a person who refuses to abide by the rules?"
The same thing we do to other rule-breakers. Punish them. And do we really give up on the idea of rules based on the possibility that some people will break them?
"The problem with your following up on my ideas is that there is no way that they can be enforced, and you know that."
Well, that's the problem with handgun bans, too.
"I grew up in schools that had properly trained security guards... this is what's needed."
Wow. We didn't need them at my school.

Tim J...
I'm glad you like my suggestions. Only what do you do to a person who refuses to abide by the rules? If a person's gun license is revoked, will he care? He still has the firearms, and it could be nicely hidden away until he has use for it. The problem with your following up on my ideas is that there is no way that they can be enforced, and you know that.
Further, I do not like the idea of Mrs. McGuilicutty who teaches English lit, suddenly going Rambo. I grew up in schools that had properly trained security guards... this is what's needed.

"I find it interesting that the focus is entirely on gun-ownership, and no mention is made on any other weapon that protects the victim from an assailant... one that causes temporary harm, as opposed to the taking of a life."
Ah! Tazers for Jesus!

Memphis Aggie...
The law cannot objectively discern, legally, as to who is mentally-disturbed-enough-to-not-warrant-a-gun-license, and those who are not. Especially if the otherwise-normal person happens to run out of prescription drugs for a day. Especially if the shooters are minors with no previous criminal record.
I find it interesting that the focus is entirely on gun-ownership, and no mention is made on any other weapon that protects the victim from an assailant... one that causes temporary harm, as opposed to the taking of a life. There's more than one way to protect yourself without playing judge, jury, and executioner.
(note to bill... this is where your 'emotional' tag on me falls flat).

Great post and comments.
Is self-protection a natural right? Yes, and the positive DUTY of those with responsibility for others (governments, parents).
Does a family need a rocket launcher to protect itself? No. Does a government? Yes. Does a family need a hand gun? In many places in our society, yes. Otherwise, the right to self-defense is meaningless against the criminal element. Is a rifle also legitimate. Yes, I would think, for hunting and potential civil self-defense (as envisioned by the framers).
As to where the individual right ends and the common good (control of arms not necessary for personal or civil self-defense) begins, that is up to political prudence to decide. Let's pray the Supreme Court has plenty of it, when it must decide the issue.

Nick, what you appear to be saying in not so many words is that no private citizen should be allowed to own a gun under any circumstances.
But I'll play your game;
"What does "properly train themselves" mean? A person takes a course (even a comprehensive military-level course)"
That's a great idea... in fact I think it should be mandatory in public schools, and yes, I'm serious.
"that would allow them to own a firearm for decades, only to have that training forgotten over a period of time?"
Sounds like mandatory refresher courses would be another great idea... for everyone physically capable of holding a gun.
"Would the licensee have to undergo a series of rigid exercises to be assured of his competency?"
Again, brilliant. I think a bill securing funding for such a program should be introduced with all speed. We'd be a stronger country in almost every conceivable way if every American citizen could execute a close order drill on a moment's notice.
It's an education initiative.
I did actually take a hunter's safety course in high school. Finally, something useful.

If we lived in a police state, then Virginia Tech would never have happened. Really. Our lives continually under suspicion by the authorities, always being subject to private searches, our every move monitorred by Big Brother. That will absolutely guarantee Virginia Tech atrocities from ever occurring again.
Funny thing. I don't see any pro-semi-automatic-gun-ownership-advocates advocating this. I happen to know from statistical analysis that they are emotionally attached to a "free society."
;)

Nick,
You're right that in a world of millions there will likely always be emotionally disturbed people who are dangerous and should not have access to guns. However, it does not follow that the vast majority of stable honest folk should be deprived of their rights in a vain attempt to reduce this risk. It's a classic case of punishing the rest of us for the failings of a few.

Jesus did say they (the Apostles) could carry swords (recall Peter answers we have two swords etc)- but He also said whoever lives by the sword will die by it and it was not part of the evangelical gear post-resurrection. His message always defies easy classification.
I said serious instead of "grave" concerning sins of omission because I think it deserves to be recognized and avoided but is not clearly mortal. If the term serious means mortal to you then I should probably use a lighter term.
As for Virginia Tech what might have happened is unknowable, but what can be said is that if someone was reasonably well trained and armed on site then fewer people might have died. It's a common sense argument.

Apparently, the central reason why the Columbine/Virginia Tech slayings occurred was also largely an emotional one.

"The pro-gun control position seems to be largely an emotional one."

"If there were some law-abiding citizens at Virginia Tech or Columbine who had their guns with them, those shooters could have been stopped a lot sooner than they were. "
You don't know that. Who's to say that these same law-abiding citizens would have made things a lot worse, accidentally shooting an innocent bystander? Who's to say that these citizens would have been wrestled to the ground, and become disarmed, and killed for their act of heroism? Who's to say that the law-abiding citizen would forget their medication one day, and no longer become a law-abiding citizen (which really WAS the case at Virginia Tech).

If there were some law-abiding citizens at Virginia Tech or Columbine who had their guns with them, those shooters could have been stopped a lot sooner than they were.