|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 11, 2017, 06:14 PM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Does the 2A really matter?
Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine there was no 2A. How much would gun laws be different in America? My guess is not very much. Pro-RKBA states would continue to be permissive, and anti-RKBA states would continue to be restrictive. There have been a few cases where courts have forced states and the federal government to be more permissive, but these cases are the exception, not the rule. Most of the time, the courts simply refuse to hear an appeal in a 2A case unless it is coming from the government's side.
Furthermore, having the right to bear arms on paper--either in the statute books or in the Constitution--means very little if those rights are not enforced on the ground. The government almost never polices itself. If a policeman confiscates your guns or otherwise abuses you for being a gun owner, in theory, you can take him to court and have him punished. In practice, it will be extremely difficult and expensive for you to do so, and the policeman will probably suffer little or no punishment. Even those who loudly declare their support for the RKBA rarely advocate consequences for those who violate the 2A. |
August 11, 2017, 06:24 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 12, 2017
Location: Ohio
Posts: 1,048
|
Interesting point, I guess it would be hard to say.. some of the politicians do actually believe in the constitution and not just pay lip service or support it in abstract.
Such politicians might have been motivated to vote a certain way based on those words on paper. Obviously there have been, and currently are enough politicians who believe the constitution is an outdated document, don't respect it or the 2A and would tell you those words mean nothing. If you're speaking about the infringement the 2a has suffered over the years.. would we be any worse off had the 2a never been put to paper? I can't answer that definitively but my guess is yes.. we would be in worse shape then we are today. How much worse? That's an even tougher question I think. |
August 11, 2017, 06:46 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Location: McMurdo Sound Texas
Posts: 4,322
|
I expect without a 2A we wouldn't be having this conversation, much less own anything bigger than a .22.
__________________
Cave illos in guns et backhoes |
August 11, 2017, 06:47 PM | #4 | |||||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
But for now, let's note that the reality is that we live in a pluralistic, political society, and not everyone thinks as we do. People have varying beliefs, values, needs, wants and fears. People have differing views on the proper role government. So while we may be using the tools the Constitution, our laws and our system give us to promote our vision of how things should be, others may and will be using those same tools to promote their visions. The Constitution, our laws, and our system give us resource and remedies. We can associate with others who think as we do and exercise what political power that association gives us to influence legislation. We have the opportunity to try to join with enough other people we can elect legislators and other public officials who we consider more attuned to our interests. And we can seek redress in court. And others who believe differently have the same opportunities. We can't expect everyone to agree with us. And as for your opinion that the Constitution isn't being applied correctly, no one really cares. The opinions of courts on matters of law, including the meaning and application of the Constitution, affect the lives and property of real people in the real world. Your opinions on such matters and $2.00 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. What our Constitution means and how it applies has been a matter for dispute almost as soon as the ink was dry. Hylton v. United States in 1796 appears to be the first major litigation involving a question of the interpretation and application of the Constitution. Then came Marbury v. Madison decided in 1803; and McCulloch v. Maryland was decided 10 years later, in 1813. The Founding Fathers assigned the role of deciding what the Constitution means and how it applies to the federal courts (Article III, Sections 1 and 2): The exercise of judicial power and the deciding of cases arising under the Constitution necessarily involves interpreting and applying the Constitution to the circumstances of the matter in controversy in order to decide the dispute. Many of the Founding Fathers were lawyers and well understood what the exercise of judicial power meant and entailed. Thus if there is disagreement about the meaning or application of the Constitution, the matter is one within the province of the federal courts to decide. As the Supreme Court ruled back in 1803 (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 2 L. Ed. 60, 1 Cranch 137 (1803), 1 Cranch at 177 -- 178): It's well settled law that under certain circumstance and to some extent a constitutionally protected right may be regulated. What those circumstance might be and the nature and extent of permissible regulation will be worked out by the courts. To do so, a court will consider, among other things, the nature of the right, the nature of the regulation, and the governmental purpose intended to be served. For the purposes of illustration, let's consider the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly and religion against laws that abridge those rights we know there has been a history of certain regulation of speech, assembly and religion. A few examples are:
So in fact the reality is that rights protected by the Constitution may nonetheless be subject to some limited regulation. The foregoing discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence serves the limited purpose of demonstrating that the courts do permit limited regulation of a constitutionally protected right. There are numerous examples of laws sustained by the courts which abridge freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of association, and freedom of religion. And First Amendment jurisprudence also offers some clues as to how such regulations will be evaluated by the courts. We can not expect, nor will we see, perfect correspondence between the regulation of rights protected by the First Amendment and the regulation of rights protected by the Second Amendment. First Amendment jurisprudence is quite mature at this point, but Second Amendment jurisprudence, in the wake of Heller, is in its infancy. However, we can expect some regulation of Second Amendment rights to be upheld by the courts. With regard to any existing or possible future governmental actions which might be applied to limit, restrict or prohibit activities associated with the keeping and/or bearing of arms, here's essentially how things work:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||||
August 11, 2017, 06:48 PM | #5 | |
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
|
|
August 11, 2017, 06:55 PM | #6 | |||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||
August 11, 2017, 07:12 PM | #7 | |||
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
August 11, 2017, 07:43 PM | #8 | |
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
Sociopaths have little to no conscience, but they are adept at pretending they do. Politicians love to make insincere emotional appeals to the public. How do we know these appeals are insincere? Because they have made selective criticism an artform. American politicians love to point to "human rights abuses" in [insert country they don't like] while having maintained an alliance with Saudi Arabia for decades. If that isn't selective criticism at its finest, then I don't know what is. Sociopaths are remorseless. They do not accept responsibility when things go wrong. When was the last time you saw a politician take the blame when he could have passed the buck? Notice that when there is a crisis--take federal debt as an example--both sides finger the other. Sociopaths love spreading nasty rumors about their enemies. Remember the rumor about Dan Quayle not being able to spell potato, or the rumor about Al Gore claiming the invention of the internet? And don't even get me started on what they say Donald Trump likes Russian ladies to do to him in hotel rooms. Sociopaths have no concept of loyalty. They change sides at the drop of a hat. As Bob Dylan said, "You just want to be on the side that's winning." Remember how Obama flipflopped on homosexual marriage? Does anyone seriously think that was sincere? Or how about when Bernie Sanders, after being against Hillary so much, all of the sudden told his supporters to vote for her. Notice the constant infighting and shifting alliances we see in Washington. Sociopaths are vindictive. What people who haven't spent much time in Washington may not know is that Congressmen are notorious for long grudges. Oh, so you didn't vote for my district's pork-barrel spending bill? Well, I'm not going to vote for your bill then. |
|
August 11, 2017, 08:34 PM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
If you believe that a written bill of rights really makes no difference, follow your 1st Am. comparison.
In Canada, you've state bodies, commissions, that explicitly limit some kinds of speech. In Germany and Austria, some forms of expression are explicitly verbotten by the state due to their content. Some religions are poorly tolerated by the state. If politics here draw the insincere, it would also draw the insincere in europe, so that can't be the distinguishing difference. It is certainly true that there are practical obstacles to an individual claiming these protections against the state, but those obstacles can be, and frequently are, overcome. You might not agree with the current state of case law in these matters; I don't agree with all of it. However, not agreeing with all facets of the case law should not get you to a conclusion that the judicial system is useless or broken.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
August 11, 2017, 09:13 PM | #10 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
If not for the 2A, the United States would probably already be as disarmed as Australia and the U.K. Yes, the 2A matters.
|
August 11, 2017, 10:02 PM | #11 | |||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Nothing you've said, even assuming that your statements are true, establishes that anyone is actually a sociopath. Sociopathy (technically Antisocial Personality Disorder) is a defined personality disorder identified by specific diagnostic criteria. It is not accurate to call someone a sociopath unless you can demonstrate with clinically appropriate evidence that he satisfies those criteria. That you might not like someone and find certain behaviors of that person to be repugnant does not support calling that person a sociopath. Your casual and inaccurate use of the term "sociopath" to describe certain people is unacceptable on TFL. It is defamatory unless you can establish the clinical diagnosis. If you continue to resort to this sort of cheap rhetorical trick, you will be subject to sanctions.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|||||
August 12, 2017, 02:42 AM | #12 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,846
|
Quote:
Some examples would be nice... And, lets be clear about something, an arms industry that is "thriving" because of military and export sales, NOT domestic, civilian sales is irrelevant to discussions about what effect a 2nd Amendment type law has. Japan has a "thriving arms industry". Their arms industry production is almost exclusively for the US consumer market. NOT the domestic Japanese market, with is nearly completely closed by Japanese laws. A similar situation, though a bit less restrictive, is found in Europe. As many of our members can tell you, from personal experience, legally obtaining a gun in European countries is more costly and more regulated than in the majority of the United States. As to 2nd Amendment case law being thin on the ground, I think the main reason for that, compared to 1st Amendment law, is that First Amendment issues have been argued, and taken to court since the founding of our Republic, while 2nd Amendment issues didn't, because until the 20th century, there was very little for anyone to go to court, over. yes, there were local gun control laws that predate the modern era, but the first national one I am aware of was the 1934 NFA. And, that law, was a TAX law (so they said) and was upheld by the Supreme Court, in what many of us today consider a seriously flawed decision. And, I will admit it is difficult or very difficult for the individual citizen to prevail in our system today. However, nothing in the Constitution states that it must be easy. Only that it is possible, and that there be a mechanism in Government to allow the opportunity. Stop whining!
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
August 12, 2017, 03:33 AM | #13 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,468
|
For those who might be interested, the M1911 Pistols Organization (M1911.org) has been running a series of articles on the gun laws and gun "culture" in various countries in its on-line magazine. The articles give readers a peak at what the gun laws are in a number of countries.
Link to the magazine: http://ezine.m1911.org/ Click on "All volumes and issues" at the top, then scroll through the index for the gun laws articles. |
August 12, 2017, 06:53 AM | #14 | ||||||
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For a more modern example, Scandinavian countries have a big hunting culture. Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
August 12, 2017, 07:11 AM | #15 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
In Canada, Germany and Austria, those restrictions on content are enforced by the state. That is not a trivial difference. It can't be a mere difference in the populations either. Americans know that when someone asks about free speech we are supposed to agree about its importance with unreserved vigor. In practice, expressions that are popularly deemed offensive, like flag burning, are targets of popular legal prohibitions, even though those prohibitions run afoul of constitutional restrictions.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; August 12, 2017 at 07:37 AM. |
||
August 12, 2017, 07:40 AM | #16 | |
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
One of the most vivid examples of the government not prosecuting its own agents comes not from the police, but the military. About 300 people were killed in the My Lai massacre. In theory, the soldiers who did it could have been court martialed and hanged. In reality, only one of them, William Calley, was ever punished, and he ended up serving only a few years of house arrest before being let off and later pardoned by President Nixon. Hugh Thompson, a helicopter pilot who tried to stop his fellow soldiers, was treated very harshly for it at the time. He was denounced by a Congressman and received regular death threats. Some people think that shooting civilians should be legal, but that's beside the point. The point is that even though the law was very clear in the matter, people at all levels of society chose to ignore the law. |
|
August 12, 2017, 08:08 AM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
If a PO detains you for the content of something you said, your counsel brings this to the attention of the court. If the court finds a constitutional violation, the prosecutor loses and the statute involved may itself be stricken. That's the protection. That the individual PO isn't prosecuted is a different matter. Sometimes POs violate peoples' rights as a matter of government policy and doesn't make sense to prosecute an agent for following instructions. In other instances, a PO clearly isn't following policy and is prosecuted. Former PO Volpe is still serving his sentence for his assault of Abner Louima. Quote:
Moreover, contrary to your assertion, those involved in Mai Lai faced charges in a court-martial.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; August 12, 2017 at 08:16 AM. |
||
August 12, 2017, 09:15 AM | #18 | |||
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
August 12, 2017, 09:28 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 10, 2004
Location: Tioga co. PA
Posts: 2,647
|
When in foreign countries, service members are covered under a "status of forces agreement". They can be quite complicated as to who gets to try them for what crime and a lot of other legal matters. Each countries agreement can be different.
__________________
USNRET '61-'81 |
August 12, 2017, 10:38 AM | #20 | |
Member
Join Date: January 25, 2017
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
|
|
August 12, 2017, 11:11 AM | #21 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
If you really want to undercut ATF capacity to make some mischief, contact your senator and congressman about pending bills that would decrease the regulatory scope of the ATF, SHUSH and SHARE. If those pass, you'll want those courts around in order to address any state or federal misconduct.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
August 12, 2017, 11:23 AM | #22 | ||||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Indeed, your comments in this thread are one cheap, rhetorical trick after another -- long on spleen and short on fact and documentation. Two examples:
All of which bring to my mind MacBeth's, "...a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury. Signifying nothing." Quote:
Order and predictability are not natural to human societies. It's been thus as long as we've been on this planet, and it's not going to change. Humans will behave sometimes non-rationally and influenced in varying degrees by emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs. And each person's spectrum of emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs will be in some ways more or less different from that of everyone else. Whether we like it or not, and whether or not we prefer the laws of physics to the ways of humans, that's the way the real life in the real world is. We can accept that, try to understand it as best we can, and look for ways to deal with reality. Or we can be frustrated when things don't work out the way we'd like them to because the world isn't constituted the way we think it should be. Order and predictability are a chimera. We'll never see such a utopia; because it can't exist in the real world. I think that's just as well; because if it could exist and came into being, I doubt that it would be the sort of place in which anyone who values freedom and beauty would want to live.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper Last edited by Frank Ettin; August 12, 2017 at 11:28 AM. Reason: correct typo |
||||
August 12, 2017, 11:40 AM | #23 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
TFM, I am following up on this because I can tell whether you disagree with, or don't understand the point.
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
August 12, 2017, 11:52 AM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,457
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
August 12, 2017, 01:15 PM | #25 | ||
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
Certainly all the Strum und Drang in his posts, without any actual evidence, makes his views pretty meaningless -- the mere venting of bile and spleen and an emotional reaction to a world he doesn't like. You're showing remarkable patience by seriously responding to his comments. I commend you for it. But I doubt that countering his hyperbole and vague expressions of dissatisfaction will have much effect. I strongly suspect that he is less interested in learning about reality than he is in rationalizing his unspecific anger. Anyway, I don't see any point to making that edit now.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
||
|
|