2nd Amendment: In the home only?

[Pertinacious Tom]

This is a hijack ongoing in the "shitcago" thread, but really the issue is bigger than just the current crime problem in Chicago.

The 7th Circuit, in a 2 to 1 decision in Moore vs Madigan, has just told Chicago that the second amendment must be applied outside the home. Chicago's position had been that it only applies within the actual residence, not the porch or garage.

My question for the reasonable gun controllers around here who at least claim to believe the second amendment is OK:

Do you believe it should apply outside of homes at all? Or do we only have a right to bear arms within our residences?

I'm interested in whether the porch or garage would be OK, but I assume most of you will agree it is. Maybe I assume too much, so please correct me if you are on Chicago's side of that one.

How about off your property? Should we have second amendment rights when out in public?

 

[Saorsa]

Well, it helps defend the third amendment.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

The third amendment is the only one I can think of that only applies to the inside of homes because it was written to apply only to the inside of homes.

The second amendment says we have a right to bear arms, but does not restrict that right to the inside of homes. That is an invention of Chicago's anti-gun politicians, who applied the most narrow possible interpretation of the Heller and McDonald decisions: one handgun only, only inside the actual residence, not any attached garage, porch, or outbuildings.

I find that an intolerably narrow interpretation of the second amendment and wonder if any gun control advocates agree with me, or would like to explain to me why I'm wrong.

Cue crickets...

 

[Gouvernail]

As with most posts in PA. The following is written such that its best delivery would be Khrushchev style at a podium while repeatedly whacking that podium with the hard leather shoe.

Go ahead, stand up, take a deep breath and read it aloud.

I made the print bigger so you could have room between yourself and the monitor

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

You guys are all so hung up on the extraneous arguments you are entirely missing my point.

 

1. The wording is VERY clear.

2. Various people with various agendas claim the wording can be bent in various directions depending upon the particular agenda of the individual.

3. Pretty much any junior high school kid who can ace English classes could re-write the 2nd amendment to suit the wishes of any of the bajillion folks who have an individual view of what it OUGHT to say.

 

As written, the 2nd Amendment is insufficient for virtually ANY holder of ANY agenda to logically enforce a modern day particular interpretation.

The Constitution has a described proper procedure for modification and that procedure does not include the words, "or when we just don't look at things that way anymore."

 

Therefore:

Infringed is a pretty simple word. The campaign for gun control must start with an amendment to the constitution.

 

WHY??

 

Because until you get off your freaking asses, line up 66.66666666% of us behind you, and modify the document so those you call "jerks on the other side" can no longer use the "poorly written and vague" second amendment to block your path, YOU WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL!!!!!

 

 

 

It ONLY takes two thirds of the states to modify the Constitution. If you want to write gun laws, write up a reasonable amendment that exactly clarifies what sort of arms ownership MAY be infringed and for what reason and get the Constitution modified AGAIN so we can operate this place for the next couple centuries.

 

OR

 

You can continue to waste billions of dollars bickering about militias, hunting rifles, machine guns, trigger functions, ammunition supply systems, education, felonies, age, mental stability, and trying to get past judges who comprehend the meaning of the word INFRINGED.

 

************************************************

 

Politicians are welcome to use the above speech while adressing whatever audience might actually be persuaded to make an honest effort to rationally approach issues related to when and for what reason we might ever decide to legally infringe upon individual posession of weapons in our society.

 

[Raz'r]

so if it cannot be infringed,

then any madman

child (or slave, or even, gasp, woman)

corporation

etc

should have access to whatever you define as an "arm"

if it really is all or nothing as you propose...

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

I have posted numerous times the limitations on the second amendment right set forth in the Heller decision, which make clear that it is far from "all or nothing" as you and Gouv seem to believe. Like the rest of our rights, it has limits and exceptions. "Fire" in a theater and certain electioneering communications and all that.

If you can find a post where I have proposed it is all or nothing, by all means post it, but I believe this is yet another of your baseless characterizations of what I think, Mitch.

 

[Gouvernail]

My position is that laws and rules of games are ALWAYS absolutes. it is the absolute nature of them that makes it possible to apply those rules fairly and without prejudice.

I am among the crowd who believes it would be a really great idea to figure out a way to stop people from shooting each other.

Currently, by definition, the government cannot make any effort to do so which involves infringement.

To those who wish to do a measured amount of infringement, I repeatedy explain>

THERE IS A PROPER PROCESS.

1. Adjust the Constitution so infringement is legal

2. Legislate the infringements

We will just ignore the words we find to be inconvenient" is NOT how the law works.

additional:

For those of you who believe the "screaming fire in the theater" example is one describing an abridgement of free speech I must burst your bubble.

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

The First Amendment has no restrictions about holding individuals responsable for the consequences of their free speech.

Just like you can't go around killing people with your stash of uninfringed arms

 

[Raz'r]

there are at least 2 approaches to the constitution

Literal

and I'll call another one the "guiding principal" approach. There are likely others.

not everyone believes in a literal interpretation.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

If speech causes people to stampede, and if such speech is against the law, how can you say that speech is not being abridged? It obviously is being abridged.

Want to try limits on electioneering communications? Those also abridge free speech.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

there are at least 2 approaches to the constitution

Literal

and I'll call another one the "guiding principal" approach. There are likely others.

not everyone believes in a literal interpretation.

No, so far you and Gouv seem to be the only ones. Certainly Justice Scalia does not...

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ..

 

[Bull Gator]

No there is no right to carry outside the home. Doing so infringes on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines

 

[Gouvernail]

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

If speech causes people to stampede, and if such speech is against the law, how can you say that speech is not being abridged? It obviously is being abridged.

Want to try limits on electioneering communications? Those also abridge free speech.

It is not the speech which is abridged. You can yell fire in a crowded theater any time you damn well please and not break any law.

If you yell fire and casue a stampede by doing so, you are responsable for that which you caused.

We cannot prosecute a guy for saying words. We can prosecute for lying, inciting, etc...

 

[Bull Gator]

How do you prove causality?

I have schooled you again!

 

[Raz'r]

Brady Campaign proposal to infringe on the 2nd. Seems pretty reasonable. I like the removal of the liability and the safety exemption.

Brady Campaign Releases Policy Recommendation Made to White House Task Force



Jan 11, 2013

Washington, DC – The Brady Campaign has been working closely with the Vice President’s Task Force on Guns. On Wednesday, Brady Campaign President Dan Gross accompanied by a group of families of victims of gun violence, met with the task force to discuss a set of policy recommendations. Today they are releasing a summary of these recommendations, which reflect the comprehensive approach supported by the Brady Campaign.

“We believe in the approach being taken by the Vice President. There is no one answer to preventing gun violence. It is a complex problem that deserves a comprehensive set of solutions,” said Gross. “The recommendations we are presenting to the White House reflect what we believe are the changes that can have the biggest impact right away. We cannot wait any longer. The American public wants this conversation to be taking place, but more importantly, they want action. We believe that as a nation we are better than this, and our recommendations can make a real difference.”

 

Brady Campaign Platform for Reducing Gun Violence in America

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence believes in a comprehensive approach to reducing gun violence in our nation, including both

• policy to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people,
  
• and public health and safety programs to inspire safer attitudes and behaviors around the 300 million guns in our homes and communities.
  

We believe the passionate and sustained voice of the American public is essential to creating meaningful change in these areas. Our goal is to bring that voice to bear in order to make this the better, safer nation we all want and deserve.

• 1. We call on elected leaders to support a policy platform that addresses the broad gun violence problem and is driven by the opportunity to save the most lives. Every death is a tragedy, whether in a mass shooting that horrifies our entire nation, or one of the 32 gun murders or 90 gun deaths in our communities and homes every day. We applaud the Obama Administration and others at the federal and state level who are leading a policy conversation based on our common goals and values, avoiding the usual, divisive political debate. Policies such as “universal background checks” on all gun sales would keep guns out of the hands of felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other illegal purchasers without impacting anyone else’s Second Amendment right to own guns. Background checks are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans, including gun owners -- and they would make us all safer. Let's start there.
  

• 2. As Americans, we must address how we think about guns in our communities and in our homes. Public education campaigns are critical to inspiring law-abiding individuals to make safer choices around gun ownership and access. Brady’s “ASK” and “Suicide Proof Your Home” campaigns are evidence that we can have a significant, quantifiable impact on public attitudes and behaviors by educating the public about the relative risks and benefits of gun ownership in an honest and credible way. Other public health and safety issues, such as drinking and driving, and smoking, also show how public health and safety campaigns and insights have had a significant impact on positively changing social norms around dangerous and risky behavior. One key opportunity is in the area of mental health, educating clinicians and parents or spouses of individuals with specific mental illnesses about the dangers associated with access to guns in the home.
  

Policy recommendations:

Our top policy priority is closing the massive hole in the background check system that enables 40% of all gun sales to take place without background checks, not only at gun shows, but also with the added anonymity of the internet. As a result convicted felons, domestic abusers, the dangerously mentally ill and other prohibited purchasers can easily purchase guns with no questions asked. Calling it a “gun show loophole” trivializes the problem. “Universal background checks” on all gun sales would have a clear positive impact on public safety, and is also clearly compatible with the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns. These policies also tend to enjoy the greatest public support. For example, 92% of Americans and 74% of NRA members support background checks.

Examples of additional policies that should be implemented include:

• Strengthen the background check system that already exists to ensure, for example, that mental health and other relevant records are in the background check system and readily available within the states.
  
• Improve the ability to identify dangerous people who present the most risk, especially among the mentally ill.
  We should provide legal mechanisms to prevent those dangerously mentally ill who present the most significant risk from possessing guns, while carefully protecting the rights of those who are mentally ill but do not pose a risk.
  
• Other dangerous people who are currently not prohibited from purchasing firearms include: terrorists, violent misdemeanants (not involving domestic violence), violent juvenile offenders, and some substance abusers.
  

[*]Support law enforcement by giving them the tools to crack down on gun trafficking and prevent straw purchases.

• Limit the number of guns that can be purchased in a short period of time.
  
• Make gun trafficking a federal offense.
  
• Allow the ATF to conduct more than one spot inspection a year for dealers (currently prohibited).
  

[*]Eliminate legal loopholes that unfairly protect dangerous practices that contribute to gun deaths and injuries.

• Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
  
• Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.
  
• Crime gun data is the only special industry exception to public disclosure under FOIA, so officials, law enforcement and researchers are kept in the dark.
  
• Department of Health and Human Services agencies, including the National Institutes of Health and Centers for Disease Control, are prevented from studying guns as a public safety risk, so important public health data on policies and programs to prevent gun injury are unavailable.
  
• ATF is prevented from requiring basic store inventories that would prevent thefts and expose corrupt dealers, and minimal punishment and excessive evidentiary hurdles make it unduly difficult to punish traffickers and corrupt dealers.
  

• Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing.
  

These policy recommendations are presented to our elected leaders and to the American public who can work together to make our nation safer.

###

​

The mission of the Brady organization is to create a safer America for all of us that will lead to the dramatic reduction in gun deaths and injuries that we all seek.

Dan Gross is the President of the Brady Campaign and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence. A photo and more information about Dan Gross is available here.

 

For more insight on gun violence prevention, follow The Brady Blog, Facebook Page and Twitter Account. Brady News Releases are available via RSS.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

There is no law against yelling Fire at any time anyplace. Our free speech remains unabridged.

There are laws against causing people to stampede, inciting riots, disturbing the peace, and a myriad of other behavioral rules and regulations having to do with survival of the community.

If speech causes people to stampede, and if such speech is against the law, how can you say that speech is not being abridged? It obviously is being abridged.

Want to try limits on electioneering communications? Those also abridge free speech.

It is not the speech which is abridged. You can yell fire in a crowded theater any time you damn well please and not break any law.

If you yell fire and casue a stampede by doing so, you are responsable for that which you caused.

We cannot prosecute a guy for saying words. We can prosecute for lying, inciting, etc...

We do indeed have prohibited speech, and have for a long time.

We have a whole agency tasked with prohibiting certain forms of speech. They are called the FEC. Here is what the Supreme Court had to say about their function in Citizens United's majority opinion:

Because the FEC’s “business is to censor, there inheres the danger that [it] may well be less responsive than a court—part of an independent branch of government—to the constitutionally protected interests in free expression.” Freedman v. Maryland , 380 U. S. 51, 57–58 (1965) . When the FEC issues advisory opinions that prohibit speech, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-case litigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected speech—harming not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.”

Then there is the FCC. You ever heard of a guy named George Carlin and his routine about 7 banned words? When was the last time you heard the word fuck on prime time TV? The freedom to say it using the public airways has been abridged for quite some time.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

No there is no right to carry outside the home. Doing so infringes on my inalienable right to life liberty and the pursuit of happines

Thanks for the first serious answer to the topic question.

Do you mean the garage and porch, like Chicago does, or are you just talking about off the property. I'm in my guest house/office at the moment and if one of my guns is in here, I don't see how it is any more dangerous to you than it would be 60 feet away in the main house.

 

[Pertinacious Tom]

...

• Make gun trafficking a federal offense.
  
• ...
  

[*]

• Guns are the only consumer product exempt from federal product safety regulations, so feasible safety features are not required.
  
• Negligent gun companies are the only businesses shielded from state civil justice laws, so corrupt gun sellers are not held accountable.
  

• ..Limit the availability of military-style weapons and high capacity ammunition magazines that are designed for mass killing.
  

I don't have a problem with much of what they propose, but firearms trafficking is already against federal law, or maybe I don't understand what they mean by trafficking.

The Lawful Commerce In Arms act does not provide product safety exemptions. Is there another law that does?

It clearly does not protect corrupt dealers, as the text of the law I posted for you says they must operate within the law to be exempt from suits.

11 rounds is not a "high" capacity for most guns in common use, speaking of which...

By "military style weapons" are they referencing ones that have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia? Because those are the ones that most clearly have second amendment protection since the Miller case in the 30s.

Speaking of the second amendment: indoors only, porches and garages, or off the property... where do you stand on the topic question?

 

[benwynn]

As with most posts in PA. The following is written such that its best delivery would be Khrushchev style at a podium while repeatedly whacking that podium with the hard leather shoe.

Go ahead, stand up, take a deep breath and read it aloud.

I made the print bigger so you could have room between yourself and the monitor

))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))0

You guys are all so hung up on the extraneous arguments you are entirely missing my point.

 

1. The wording is VERY clear.

2. Various people with various agendas claim the wording can be bent in various directions depending upon the particular agenda of the individual.

3. Pretty much any junior high school kid who can ace English classes could re-write the 2nd amendment to suit the wishes of any of the bajillion folks who have an individual view of what it OUGHT to say.

 

As written, the 2nd Amendment is insufficient for virtually ANY holder of ANY agenda to logically enforce a modern day particular interpretation.

The Constitution has a described proper procedure for modification and that procedure does not include the words, "or when we just don't look at things that way anymore."

 

Therefore:

Infringed is a pretty simple word. The campaign for gun control must start with an amendment to the constitution.

 

WHY??

 

Because until you get off your freaking asses, line up 66.66666666% of us behind you, and modify the document so those you call "jerks on the other side" can no longer use the "poorly written and vague" second amendment to block your path, YOU WILL NOT ACCOMPLISH YOUR GOAL!!!!!

 

 

 

It ONLY takes two thirds of the states to modify the Constitution. If you want to write gun laws, write up a reasonable amendment that exactly clarifies what sort of arms ownership MAY be infringed and for what reason and get the Constitution modified AGAIN so we can operate this place for the next couple centuries.

 

OR

 

You can continue to waste billions of dollars bickering about militias, hunting rifles, machine guns, trigger functions, ammunition supply systems, education, felonies, age, mental stability, and trying to get past judges who comprehend the meaning of the word INFRINGED.

 

************************************************

 

Politicians are welcome to use the above speech while adressing whatever audience might actually be persuaded to make an honest effort to rationally approach issues related to when and for what reason we might ever decide to legally infringe upon individual posession of weapons in our society.

May I suggest an ammendment that has the word "Regulated" in it?

Shit. I'm too late again.

 

[Raz'r]

I honestly had never given it thought before now. Will have to noodle on it for awhile. Kinda defeats the point for hunters if you can only own at home.