heywood on 28/2/2018 at 16:48
Quote Posted by Starker
Not only are armed vigilantes a dubious solution to the mass shootings, they are a poor solution to the larger problem of gun violence and gun deaths in general. They are not going to stop a guy murdering his family or a toddler getting killed while playing with a firearm or a depressed office worker about to blow his brains out.
Exactly. On average, there are nearly 100 shooting deaths every day, 3-4 of them children. As terrible as mass shootings are, they represent a drop in the bucket. Our main focus should be on coming up with policies that can reduce the routine, daily death toll.
LarryG on 28/2/2018 at 17:41
I have yet to find any evidence of a common law right to bear arms other than in the forming of a militia in defense of the state. I would welcome anyone who can offer such a documented reference to a particular law in the set of common laws.
Please note that "common law" does not mean "undocumented laws" but instead is a reference to the body of English law started by Henry II (1133–89) who desired to
Quote:
improve the judiciary in the 1160s. He sent out judges from his own court to the counties to hear matters, so that there was one law common to all the people, reflecting the fairness principle in Leviticus and becoming the proto–quarter sessions and circuits. The common law principles came out of cases being recorded, and judges regarding each other’s decisions as binding in similar cases—the principle known as stare decices.
((
https://misesuk.org/2014/12/22/the-british-constitution-and-the-right-to-keep-and-bear-arms-for-defence/))
And it is in that body of common laws across England where there was a requirement for each man to arm himself appropriate to his social class (“suitable to his condition”), and to train in preparation for the call-out to defend England from foreign invaders (Vikings, Spanish, French, Irish, Scots, or whoever else coveted England), should it ever come. This is all, of course, before the practice of having standing armies for this purpose. Standing armies in peace times were seen as a huge potential threat to the government, as they could be used for its overthrow should the leadership of the armies so desire. And they were not wrong. There is always such a threat from a standing army. But we have judged in modern times and circumstances the risk of that happening to be much less than the risks from not having a ready armed response to back up our diplomacy when necessary.
There is a generally accepted principle in law, not deriving from common law as far as I can determine, of the right for an individual to use reasonable, defensive force, for the purpose of defending one's own life or the lives of others, including, in certain circumstances, the use of deadly force. Note that this right is for self-defense, not for bearing arms. Now this right for self-defense hangs on the hook of expectation that the arm of the state will not always be present to defend us against individual offensive attacks. It is generally conceived that should there be some official present who can intervene on our behalf that we should stand down and let them get on with defending us. Also note that it is not a legal obligation that we act to defend ourselves or others, only that we have the right to do so should we so choose.
In summary, if any natural law on this subject exists it seems only to be recognized as one of self-defense, and not to bear arms. And in common law, the right to bear arms is actually an obligation to own and train with weaponry in order to be ready to defend the state from its enemies and to respond to a "call to arms" from the government to do so. Bow and arrows would be a good, and traditional choice (ref. the Battle of Agincourt in 1415), especially for those of us who play Thief.
Draxil on 28/2/2018 at 19:57
Larry, that's bunk. The founding fathers all read and were heavily influenced by Blackstone's
Commentaries on the Laws of England, in which he wrote:
Quote:
... lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated or attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts and law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and lastly to the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense. And all these rights and liberties it is our birthright to enjoy entire; unless where the laws of our country have laid them under necessary restraints. Restraints in themselves so gentle and moderate, as will appear upon farther inquiry, that no man of sense or probity would wish to see them slackened.
Commenting on
Commentaries and its application to the Federal Government and Commonwealth of Virginia, St. George Tucker wrote in 1803:
Quote:
This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.
In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the "words suitable to their condition and degree", have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.
Only by taking the amendment out of context can the 2nd amendment be read to
restrict the right to keep arms.
SubJeff on 28/2/2018 at 20:06
What a legend.
LarryG on 28/2/2018 at 20:33
Quote Posted by Draxil
Only by taking the amendment out of context can the 2nd amendment be read to
restrict the right to keep arms.
I think you misunderstood me. At no place did I posit that the 2nd amendment restricts any right to bear arms. I said that it only addresses the bearing of arms in support of a well regulated militia. It neither grants nor restricts nor speaks to the bearing of arms for any other purpose. If you are looking for a right to bear arms for any reason other than being ready to be called up as a member of a militia, you need to look elsewhere than the 2nd amendment. That's why a lot of folk try to fall back on "common law" or "natural law" as providing that justification. Unfortunately, common law doesn't appear to do that, and it is generally accepted that natural law only applies to a right of self-defense and is not specific as to means (fists, knives, blackjacks, crossbows, guns, strangling cords, grenades, acids, bazookas, knitting needles, sand, rocks, or whatever else you find lying about when you are in need of effecting self-defense). There is nothing which restricts the government from licensing any particular means of self-defense (i.e. requiring registration , prior approval, and / or taxing), or from making some of the aforementioned self-defense means to be out and out illegal to posses.
We may have a natural right to self-defense, and I would argue that we do, but no place in the constitution or the amendments to the constitution is there an enumerated right specific to owning a gun. Sorry. It just isn't there. So it is up to our legislatures to pass laws which address this issue, which balance the reasonable needs of the individual to own a gun and the reasonable needs of the people as a whole to be protected from the irresponsible, the criminal, or the mentally impaired having guns.
Draxil on 28/2/2018 at 20:56
Maybe I wasn't clear, either. I think you're wrong in your interpretation because the founding fathers were heavily influenced by Blackstone's work, and his commentary on English common law was that it was an Englishman's right to bear arms for self-preservation, and not just preservation of the state. It was understood.
Leave aside the interpretation of a 200+ year old document for just a moment, because for practical purposes it's wishful thinking anyway. How would you (the pro gun-control members of this forum) suggest dealing with controlling guns in this country? License, grandfather/ban, ban/ban, ban/confiscate? I don't see any of those going over well with the gun owners of this country. It was done with the assault rifle ban in the 90's with no discernible effect on crime or gun violence, and it's only real effect was to strengthen the NRA's lobbying muscle. Bans make for great enrollment.
Starker on 28/2/2018 at 21:21
What's wrong with a license? You need one to drive a car, after all. Wouldn't it make sense to require one to handle something at least as dangerous?
Draxil on 28/2/2018 at 21:52
You require a license to drive a car on public land, and can drive on your own property without one. I don't think I would have an issue with a similar arrangement for guns, provided that the licensing requirements weren't intentionally restrictive.
LarryG on 1/3/2018 at 01:44
Quote Posted by Draxil
It was done with the assault rifle ban in the 90's with no discernible effect on crime or gun violence ...
The jury is still out on that one. Ref. (
https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/)
What now seems proven beyond most reasonable doubt is that open carry results in more gun violence, not less. ref. (
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/) and the paper itself at (
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510).
Quote:
Our major finding is that under all four specifications (DAW, BC, LM, and MM), RTC laws are associated with higher aggregate violent crime rates, and the size of the deleterious effects that are associated with the passage of RTC laws climbs over time. Ten years after the adoption of RTC laws, violent crime is estimated to be 13-15 percent higher than it would have been without the RTC law.
Moving on,
Quote Posted by Draxil
How would you (the pro gun-control members of this forum) suggest dealing with controlling guns in this country?
I would start with a voluntary buyback program coupled with licensing for guns not turned in. The licensing could pay for the buyback and all costs associated with reasonable regulation of the remaining guns.
Some classes of guns, like assault weapons, I would advocate restriction of licensed ownership to gun clubs where people could go to shoot them and experience whatever it is that they like about shooting assault weapons in an environment which protects the rest of us from them. Heck, I don't see why we couldn't license responsible and federally inspected clubs from owning operational tanks and other heavy weapons, for a sufficiently steep licensing fee, one that pays for all the regulatory and oversight costs appropriate to the specific classes of weapons to be made available to club members. Why not have Disneylands for gun enthusiasts as long as they are ensured to be safe and sane environments and run by responsible, trained professionals who can be held accountable? Go for it I say!
I really think that a licensing approach is the way to go. It can be used to ensure that gun owners are properly trained according to the class of weapon licensed, not just in gun mechanics and gun safety, but in the obligations to the public that you take on when owning a gun. It can screen out those whom society thinks should not own guns (criminals, say, or mental incompetents or ...). It can also be used to fund the administration of gun oversight and control, sort of in the same way that the fees from car ownership licensing fund traffic safety and other automobile related costs to the state. Like car licensing, I am talking about annual licensing of each gun owned, not the licensing of the owner. Each gun would need an annual license. Each gun operator should need an operators license like a drivers license to ensure that the people operating (shooting) guns are properly trained to do so, regardless of who owns the gun. Such shooting permits should expire regularly so that the shooter's continued qualifications to shoot can be re-verified before issuing a new permit. I also think that safety inspections of gun storage should be mandatory for gun owners every year or perhaps every other year, similar to the way that you have to get your car's emissions tested on a regular basis.
Oh, and just like we have gas tax for cars, an ammo tax should also be enacted so that those who just own guns but don't often shoot them shouldn't have to pay the same as those who want to shoot everything up.
So, gun control implemented in such a way could be self-financing. Those who want to won or play with guns would pay for the privilege. Those who don't would not suffer a burden to support other peoples' hobbies. Like right to free speech, where the more money you have, the more free speech you get, so it should be with guns, the more money you have, the more guns you get to play with.