Replies

“Is the right absolutely absolute? Or can there be Constitutional limitations? I’m not up on all the Supreme Court precedents but I remember something about yelling “fire” in a crowded theater.”

1. It is probably (on a theoretical level) more absolute than other rights - because it says “...shall not be infringed.” The First Amendment only says that “Congress shall pass no law...” which leaves open the possibility that states CAN pass such laws. Note that the latter is no longer true since the idea of “incorporating” all of the Bill of Rights via the 14th Amendment has become generally accepted. That latter fact, however, does not change the fact that the language of the 2nd Amendment is much more restrictive against government actions than the 1st Amendment’s language.

2) None of what I wrote above has stopped Congress or the states from passing tens of thousands of laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms, nor has it prevented the courts on all levels from upholding such laws. The “Heller” and “McDonald” decisions have restored some of our rights, but there is a LONG way to go to get us back to the state of affairs before the 1934 NFA.

3) WRT yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater...this is a very overused and misunderstood analogy. First of all, you are, in fact, allowed to be in a crowded theater and yell, “Fire!” if that tickles your fancy. There is no “prior restraint” of that right permitted (and, to make the prior restraint applied against gun owners equivalent in the crowded theater scenario, you’d have to cut the vocal cords, or remove the tongues of, or at least duct tape the mouths of, all theater patrons). What this over-used and misunderstood phrase means is that you can be punished for yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater if there was, in fact, no fire, and if someone else was injured or killed as a result of the panic that you knowingly caused by your utterance. Again, no prior restraint on free speech is involved - as it most definitely is in the firearms context where mere ownership or possession of certain arms is prohibited even if you have never committed any crime whatsoever.

BTW, other over-used canards are that “the militia is the National Guard” or “the Founders never knew about machine guns, so they aren’t protected” or “only firearms that can be carried by a single person are protected” (i.e. no crew-served weapons, no howitzers, etc.). Those are ALL false.

1) The militia is NOT the National Guard. In the 1990 case of Perpich v. Department of Defense https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpich_v._Department_of_Defense, the Supreme Court ruled that the National Guard is NOT the militia, and that it is subject to federalization without the permission of the governor of whatever state said National Guard unit is from.

2) The Founders DID know about full auto weapons. See this post (specifically, the answer provided by Sean Sanders): https://www.quora.com/What-were-the-most-advanced-arms-available-in-1791-the-year-that-the-Second-Amendment-was-passed Specifically, the Founders knew about the Puckle gun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun and the Belton carbine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock (which was introduced to the Continental Congress, but not purchased due to the cost). Additionally, the Girandoni air rifle was a semi-automatic with a 20-round magazine, and was carried across the country (and used) by the Lewis and Clark expedition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

3) Crew-served weapons - specifically cannon - were known to be owned by numerous private (and wealthy, to be sure) citizens. The fact that among the powers of the Congress listed in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution is the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;” It is that “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal” part that is relevant here - it essentially means that the Congress can allow private citizens to act in the stead of the armed forces, including the use of their own private arms. MANY such Letters were granted during the Revolutionary period by the Continental Congress, and by the Congress at least through the War of 1812. So, privately-owned ships could take on, for example, British warships in the War of 1812 under this provision...but pray tell, HOW does one do that if you aren’t armed with equivalent weapons? The Founders were no dopes, they understood QUITE well that these people owned crew-served cannon before the Letters were granted, and would own them afterwards if their actions were successful. Here is more on the Letters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_of_Marque_and_Reprisal

Bottom line: the 2nd Amendment is a LOT more absolute, and a LOT more comprehensive, than even most hard-core 2nd Amendment advocates know or understand.