What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Circe]

Yesterday there was a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rivkin and Grossman on "Gun Control and the Constitution." I didn't think it was particularly good, but it did remind me that constitutional protections of all kinds have repeatedly been infringed by the government. The authors say of abridging constitutionality that "Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important."

There has been a lot of silly talk by not-very-bright people of the kind that think it's somehow an argument to call people "idiots" and "bitches" who don't seem to get at any part of the real arguments. I find that frustrating, because this is quite an important issue, but there is little clear thinking about it.

Stupid argument 1: The government can't and doesn't infringe our gun rights ever ever ever ever and if they ever did this would be the end of the world world world!!!!!

Not so: the government has infringed this Constitutional right all along: no grenades, no submachine guns, no sawed off shotguns, no nukes. Could we please dispense with this sort of non-think?

Stupid argument 2: It's a slippery slope greased with Crisco! Butter! No. 30 motor oil!! If they take away Bubba Boy's 14 assault rifles and his 26 100-round high-capacity magazines, or even just make it illegal for the poor guy to buy the other 17 he wants, that means they'll come after the pistol everyone else keeps in their sock drawer for home defense and the burglars will kill us all!!!!!

Not so: weapons confiscation hasn't happened ever, and they banned the assault rifles for ten years already and none of that happened.

The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time: speech and religion as well as the many prohibition on weapons ownership already in place.

So does anyone who is able to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Individual right to bear arms in common use apart from connected militia service.

Gun laws need to be geared to stopping criminals not the law abiding.

 

[TNHarley]

I do not believe the federal government, or any state or local government, has ever gone door-to-door in an attempt to confiscate weapons. But I believe the California state government did use registration papers to send notices to owners of assault rifles, telling them to “turn them in.”
Then again, rifles, pistols, shotguns & explosives were confiscated from Japanese-Americans in Hawaii after Pearl Harbour in 1942.
Grenades are legal to own with a lot of paperwork and plenty of money
You can own a sawed off shotgun with the minimum of barrel length
The nuke thing = I am not sure about that one.. I know that there is some international law about that but IDK if we can "legally" own them

 

[Circe]

Individual right to bear arms in common use apart from connected militia service.

Gun laws need to be geared to stopping criminals not the law abiding.

Good point, that if there is a government interest, surely it should be in stopping criminals shooting with them, not law-abiding people owning them.

I see you are divorcing the individual right to bear arms FROM the militia service: the WSJ article did that, too, carefully quoting only the "shall not infringe" part of the Amendment and leaving off the militia part: I wondered why they did that. I gather that's an issue these days, whether citizens can properly own guns if they aren't part of an organized militia, whatever that is? (There aren't any militias, except semi-terrorist private groups and Army-associated National Guards, I think, so that's a problem too.)

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no constitutional limit to owning firearms. Case law is another travesty entirely.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I do not believe the federal government, or any state or local government, has ever gone door-to-door in an attempt to confiscate weapons.

You are incorrect.

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures - USATODAY.com

 

[OODA_Loop]

I see you are divorcing the individual right to bear arms FROM the militia service: the WSJ article did that, too, carefully quoting only the "shall not infringe" part of the Amendment and leaving off the militia part: I wondered why they did that.

It was the affirmation by SCOTUS in Heller v. DC.

 

[Oddball]

What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

None.

The Constitution was written to limit gubmint...Period.

That the question is even being asked shows how truly ignorant many have become about the founding document.

 

[Circe]

Then again, rifles, pistols, shotguns & explosives were confiscated from Japanese-Americans in Hawaii after Pearl Harbour in 1942.

I myself have no problem with that: the danger of saboteurs and spies was huge then.

Grenades are legal to own with a lot of paperwork and plenty of money

I find that hard to believe; if you could back that up, I'll read the reference.

But if they WERE legal to own, and I notice no one anyone has heard of actually does own them, is that the solution? Make any disfavored weaponry so hard to get and so extremely expensive and so much work to acquire with the legal hurdles, that few do?

You can own a sawed off shotgun with the minimum of barrel length

And then a sawed-off shotgun an inch shorter infringes your Constitutional rights, right?

It sounds like your argument is that they aren't infringing MUCH, REALLY -- like being a little pregnant. It's not a problem, she's not VERY pregnant, just a little bit.

They don't let you own whatever you want to. We know that. That ship has sailed. The question is, what parameters are being used to infringe that right? Should be used? Shouldn't?

 

[TNHarley]

I do not believe the federal government, or any state or local government, has ever gone door-to-door in an attempt to confiscate weapons.

You are incorrect.

NRA to settle suit over Katrina gun seizures - USATODAY.com

I had no idea they did that. It should have clicked, considering the way the people were acting towards one another

 

[OODA_Loop]

The question is, what parameters are being used to infringe that right? Should be used? Shouldn't?

Those questions are answered in Heller.
Have you read it ?

 

[Circe]

I see you are divorcing the individual right to bear arms FROM the militia service: the WSJ article did that, too, carefully quoting only the "shall not infringe" part of the Amendment and leaving off the militia part: I wondered why they did that.

It was the affirmation by SCOTUS in Heller v. DC.

2008; Okay, I didn't really follow that ruling that DC couldn't infringe (or any state?) -- I am presuming you mean that the argument was that people weren't in militias, so they couldn't own guns. Is that right? And it was struck down.

Well, if Heller sets precedent away from the militia question, whether guns are only owned as part of a militia, as in, say, Switzerland, that is very interesting.

 

[OODA_Loop]

2008; Okay, I didn't really follow that ruling that DC couldn't infringe (or any state?) -- I am presuming you mean that the argument was that people weren't in militias, so they couldn't own guns. Is that right? And it was struck down.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[TNHarley]

6 Things You Won't Believe Are More Legal Than Marijuana | Cracked.com

http://www.atf.gov/publications/down...f-p-5400-7.pdf

 

[Circe]

There is no constitutional limit to owning firearms. Case law is another travesty entirely.

No, nor is there a constitutional limit to free speech or religion: but the government has indeed made laws that do infringe all of those. Is that --- always bad?

You can't falsely yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater just because you love excitement.

Conspiracy among a group of Muslims to blow up subways is not protected speech.

The religious freedom of Mormons to make polygamous marriages was infringed by federal troops in the 1890s. The religious freedom of Mormons to have sex with girl children of 12 was infringed this decade.

There's a whole lotta infringing goin' on --- when is it justifiable?

 

[Circe]

I'll read that Heller case and get back to this later tonight, OODA. I see you are right that it is an important ruling.

 

[Mad Scientist]

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect Americans against Tyrannical Gov't.

Whatever a Tyrannical Gov't can have, it's Citizens should be able to have as well.

I'm willing to bet the Average Citizen would be MORE responsible with a Drone that the US Gov't is.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

There is no constitutional limit to owning firearms. Case law is another travesty entirely.

No, nor is there a constitutional limit to free speech or religion: but the government has indeed made laws that do infringe all of those. Is that --- always bad?

You can't falsely yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater just because you love excitement.

Conspiracy among a group of Muslims to blow up subways is not protected speech.

The religious freedom of Mormons to make polygamous marriages was infringed by federal troops in the 1890s. The religious freedom of Mormons to have sex with girl children of 12 was infringed this decade.

There's a whole lotta infringing goin' on --- when is it justifiable?

Never. If we are a nation ruled by the written law of the constitution, then the federal government has no business infringing on any of these rights at all. Ever. UNder any circumstances except those laid out explicitly in the constitution. Any other powers not enumerated belong to the state. Anything explicit within the document/contract regarding inalienable rights, and restrictions, aren't to be touched.

But the SCOTUS decides what is law and what isn't. So case law has preserved and expanded these encroachments at every level. To the point now that the document is molested beyond recognition.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So does anyone who is ble to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?

Any restriction on the exercise of a right is an infringement on the right - the question is if that restriction is constitutionally permissible.

Infringements on fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitutions are generally evaluated by the court under strict scruitiny.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In essece, the state has to show that the restriction on question is an effective means thru which to affect a compelling state interest, and is th least restrictive means to that end. Understand that a "compelling state interest" is something that, without, the government cannot function.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Individual right to bear arms in common use apart from connected militia service.

Gun laws need to be geared to stopping criminals not the law abiding.

Good point, that if there is a government interest, surely it should be in stopping criminals shooting with them, not law-abiding people owning them.

I see you are divorcing the individual right to bear arms FROM the militia service: the WSJ article did that, too, carefully quoting only the "shall not infringe" part of the Amendment and leaving off the militia part: I wondered why they did that.

Simple:
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home