Posted on 12/04/2007 12:56:01 AM PST by neverdem
On Nov. 20, the Supreme Court announced its interest in deciding the scope of the Second Amendment - the right to bear arms. Previously, the Supreme Court has often sided with the states right to legislate gun control laws and has generally interpreted the Constitution to focus on a militia rather than individual rights. This time, however, the court intends to focus on the amendment itself rather than relevant cases pertaining to it. Depending on the verdict, the outcome of this trial could either allow for heavy gun control restrictions or denounce them.
Activists from both sides reach a sort of cul-de-sac in the gun control debate. Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.
Notice the difference in approach. Pro-gun activists often treat individual responsibility as a given, and fight for human rights. Meanwhile, anti-gun activists argue the capabilities of the individual, and then fight for safety. Somehow, they both managed to debate on two different planes.
In more recent history, gun violence reached a peak in 1993 after a seemingly unusual spike in 1988. Later, this spike decreased substantially to pre-1988 levels, a level of violence that has persisted until today. This strange jump in crime, followed by an equally unusual decrease, was an almost uniform change across the country. This implies that some mechanism in policy could have been the cause of the surge.
To consider this crime surge, look no further than the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986. This act did several things that combine about as well as ammonia and bleach. First, the law made it illegal to transfer guns from legal owners to unauthorized persons while expanding the definition of "prohibited" citizens. Second, it shielded gun owners and dealers from submitting records of who purchased firearms or ammunition. Third, it slackened restrictions on transporting firearms between state borders. Fourth, it decreased the amounts of searches that could be performed by the government without a warrant. Finally, it outlawed all fully automatic weapons made after 1986.
So, in short, the law decreased the government's ability to enforce the law while making more laws. From the practical perspective, most rational thinkers could have assumed that the law would have the opposite effect of what was intended. After all, most crimes were already committed with handguns and the only automatic weapons used in crimes were found in Hollywood gangster films. Within two years after the law's enactment, gun violence surged, and by 1993, crime was about 50 percent more than it was in 1986.
The reasons for this increase were fairly simple to spot. The government told gun owners and dealers that it no longer needed them to report sales on ammunitions or firearms. By allowing this sort of secrecy, the government's ability to track a gun after a crime was committed was diminished. Gun owners no longer needed to disclose their purchases, making all legislation about transferring firearms impossible to adequately enforce. Guns were easier to transport across state lines, making interstate violence easier to commit. These clauses alone nearly invalidated the entire act and practically overturned the effectiveness of previous gun control legislation.
There is a balance that must be reached in gun control policy, between gun owner privacy rights and the regulation of firearm supplies. The policy of banning weapons becomes largely ineffective when the idea of individual privacy is supported. Then again, low gun regulation coupled with high privacy rights could incite even more gun violence. Further, to ban most firearms while keeping a close eye on legal gun owners will permit only outlaws to own the most dangerous of weapons. This makes heavy gun control enforcement dangerous.
Lessons learned from the past would imply that privacy rights for gun owners are dangerous, if they are too protective. But, the majority of crime today uses handguns rather than automatic weapons, mostly because it is harder to conceal an M-16 in your trousers. Yet, the only guns that seem to be banned are fully automatic weapons. It seems rather trite that the least commonly used weapon would be the most viciously despised among lawmakers. The same logic can be applied by banning pencils because people die of lead poisoning.
The Supreme Court must recognize that the extreme views for and against gun control are destructive. Therefore, a middle of the road verdict is critical. There are fair policies in gun control, but any act of banning firearms or protecting secrecy of ownership will allow for higher crime rates in the country. If history is any indicator of the future, the Supreme Court will side with the government's ability to legislate against firearms. On the bright side, if heavier gun restraints go against gun owners, it might be time for everyone to get a militia license. Hopefully, the Supreme Court knows better.
Balance is critical. I like a modified weaver stance, myself.
Seems that your domain has expired...
Thanks Knarf. I agree with you.
We are not talking about *reasonable people.* We're discussing legislators, who have in fact defined as *machine guns* any weapon with more than a 14-shot magazine capacity, [Ohio] any with a front pistol grip, folding stock or bayonet lug [Illinois] any spring, pin or sling swivel or other part that might also be used on a machinegun [Washington State] or shoelace [USA, per BATFE letter.]
Dan Cunningham is clearly one dim dem......
Gun control is a joke , just like any other paper law that criminals ignore.
Until Dan & his clan gets that message they remain ignorant of the solutions to crime.
I agree with your compromise comments.
As for original intent, it sure makes a lot more sense than ‘European Intent’. I’m sure you agree, that the drift of the court is very toubling.
You wrote: “FA are not illegal.”
And then gave a link to a site that does not sell legal FA.
I needed to clear up your error.
Imagine if the Repub Congresscritters started running on the promise that they would bring impeachment hearings against any federal judge that included anything other than the text of the Constitution/Amendments and any supporting documentation from the time of ratification.
No foreign law, no “social justice”, no “evolving standards” - just the text and the intended meaning.
??? I guess they don't teach things like logic at UCONN.
Unlike the Roe v Wade decision on abortion that was decided by a majority of Republican justices that were then dubbed liberals, the Republican Party would not enjoy that luxury if this court decides to restrict the right of people to keep and bear arms.
I’ve a quirky sense, actually an expectation, the court is prepared to issue a decision with extraordinary emphasis on the state rather than the individual. I hope my expectation is proved unfounded.
I have to admit my expectations are based on cynicism. I earnestly believe citizen militias offer the greatest deterrent to crime, and thus offer the greatest security to a free State, and it is imperative to this end that the right of People to keep and bear arms is unrestricted and paramount in this social equation.
I am also keenly aware both the Democrats and Republicans have expanded law enforcement agencies that place government, not citizens, in the position to control crime, or in my most cynical appraisal, ration crime, knowing that crime incites fear, and with fear comes a greater likelihood of the People to allow more control to an expanding government.
What I would like to see is a decision that affirms the unrestricted right of people to keep and bear arms, AND form well regulated militias at the local level to make communities less reliant upon parceled out government security.
That this decision will come so close to the November 08 elections intrigues me. It could be a decision that shapes the future of the nation politically.
Correct. Which makes for an odd ruling for those proclaiming an individual right. Even the 1st Circuit Court in Cases v United States, 1942, said:
"Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
Ben was such a diplomat. He neglected to comment on what they would deserve. Deserving or not there is a natural consequence to surrendering liberty and the means to defend it.
Well it would endear me to them. It would drive the moonbats away in droves. I’d like to think there are more of us than them, but in today’s USA, it’s a close call.
Later, this spike decreased substantially...and yet, the spin-doctor author this hit piece still calls it a "spike". What a maroon. Thanks neverdem.
And then gave a link to a site that does not sell legal FA.
I needed to clear up your error. There was no error. Your statement in post #51 stated that parts kits that are useless without the registered component (receiver/tube) that the law calls a “machine gun.”
I posted information leading to and illustrrating a perfectly legal use for those parts and a semi-auto receiver component.
And those cost thousands of dollars to buy and are illetgal to make.
Expensive, yes, in some instances... but not at all necessarily thereby *illetgal.*
SCOTUS has already explicitly ejected the "state-controlled militia" angle in the question which they (not DC) wrote. Heller is now entirely about whether DC's prohibitions infringe on private, personal, individual RKBA. To wit:
Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?
SCOTUS made a lot of major statements in that question.
Do you reckon any of those *framers* knew bookseller and amateur artillerist Henry Knox, the Father of American Artillery, whose birthday on 25 July is celebrated by officers of the U.S. Army's Artillery Branch at Fort Sill every year?
Anyone care to take bets on what current weapons would reside in the personal armory...or garage...of Henry Knox today?
As the authors of the 2ndA had just completed a revolution, and did so with non-trivial supply of PRIVATELY-owned cannons, battleships, and other heavy arms, it seems to us likely that the framers of the Amendment intended exactly such result.
Uh, guys, check your reference & quotes & attributions. It’s tiger-one that wrote “FA are not illegal”. Methinks you’re arguing at cross-purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
