4 ms·

No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based

No, I don't think you can extrapolate that, those seem like entirely unrelated issues. Neither of those points imply an overly broad law that only works based on the trust and restraint of the government.

ams6110 11y ago
The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.
- hga 11y ago
  the government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. Not true in California and I think New York state. Threatened in D.C., and I'm no doubt missing more than a few examples. Needless to say, the majority of US gun owners are opposed to registration (to the point that such a requirement nationwide would light a slow match to a hot civil war; as it is, the post-Sandy Hook registration laws in Connecticut and New York state have been mostly ignored, in these Bluest of states), especially since there are no significant benefits to such schemes. Plenty of us know our 20th Century history as well and the retail and wholesale democide that registration led to abroad.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government. No, its a matter of seizing the guns itself being prohibited by the Constitution. This is not analogous to the case at issue, where the Court would rely on the governments promise not to do what the interpretation of the law the government asks to be upheld would be allowed, instead, what is proposed with regard to the 2nd Amendment is trusting the government not to do something that would be easier with information it has as a result of the interpretation of the law it advocates, but which would still be prohibited by that interpretation. While there may be a problem with that, its not the same type of problem, and bringing it up is mostly inviting a derailment of the thread rather than adding anything to the discussion of the issue at hand in the article.
- Dylan16807 11y ago
  That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.
  - themartorana 11y ago
    Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.
    - jonathankoren 11y ago
      I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling
      - cgriswald 11y ago
        No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.
      - Pyxl101 11y ago
        > The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. You are wrong about this. Please read District of Columbia v. Heller in full (2008). It reviews the history, with ample explanation of the meaning, phrasing, and expectations elucidated through founding-era sources. Please see section D, which has an extensive discussion of how this right was discussed in the 19th century. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concludes: > It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense. There is significant evidence in the way of commentary, court opinions, legislation, etc. justifying that the right was understood as an individual right throughout this time: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” > Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” Lastly, you misconstrue the nature of the 5-4 decision. Two years earlier, in 2008, the same justices as who you are referring to also dissented in Columbia v. Heller, and wrote: > #1. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. > #2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. [...] I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. Even the dissenting votes agree that the right to bear arms individually for self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment, at least to some degree. Their dissenting votes are based on a disagreement about the scope of that protection, and how it interacts with competing interests in those cases. The dissent involves questions like whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the due process clause.

ams6110 11y ago

The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government.

hga 11y ago
the government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. Not true in California and I think New York state. Threatened in D.C., and I'm no doubt missing more than a few examples. Needless to say, the majority of US gun owners are opposed to registration (to the point that such a requirement nationwide would light a slow match to a hot civil war; as it is, the post-Sandy Hook registration laws in Connecticut and New York state have been mostly ignored, in these Bluest of states), especially since there are no significant benefits to such schemes. Plenty of us know our 20th Century history as well and the retail and wholesale democide that registration led to abroad.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The government often claims that they will not use gun registration records to seize guns. So far they have not. But they have the information, and they could try to do it, so it is a matter of trusting the government. No, its a matter of seizing the guns itself being prohibited by the Constitution. This is not analogous to the case at issue, where the Court would rely on the governments promise not to do what the interpretation of the law the government asks to be upheld would be allowed, instead, what is proposed with regard to the 2nd Amendment is trusting the government not to do something that would be easier with information it has as a result of the interpretation of the law it advocates, but which would still be prohibited by that interpretation. While there may be a problem with that, its not the same type of problem, and bringing it up is mostly inviting a derailment of the thread rather than adding anything to the discussion of the issue at hand in the article.
Dylan16807 11y ago
That really has nothing to do with the constitutional status of guns, though. You could say the same about registering cars, and the government coming around to seize all cars.
- themartorana 11y ago
  Except guns are specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and were pretty important in breaking away from tyranny and forming a new country. Cars, not so much.
  - jonathankoren 11y ago
    I'd like to see you win armed insurrection today without cars. Also, The 2nd Amendment refers to a state government sponsored and maintained military force. The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/28/AR2010062802134.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06... edit: spelling
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      No, it is the idea that it is not an individual right that is new and novel. The individual right to possess weapons for self-defense predates the United States.
    - Pyxl101 11y ago
      > The idea there is an individual right, is a novel invention in the last 30 years. In fact, it was never recognized until all-to-predictable 5-4 decision in 2010[1]. You are wrong about this. Please read District of Columbia v. Heller in full (2008). It reviews the history, with ample explanation of the meaning, phrasing, and expectations elucidated through founding-era sources. Please see section D, which has an extensive discussion of how this right was discussed in the 19th century. Upon reviewing the evidence, the court concludes: > It was plainly the understanding in the post-Civil War Congress that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to use arms for self-defense. There is significant evidence in the way of commentary, court opinions, legislation, etc. justifying that the right was understood as an individual right throughout this time: > In Nunn v. State, 1Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the “natural right of self-defence” and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right: > “The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law which contravenes this right, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void [...]” > Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States [...].” Lastly, you misconstrue the nature of the 5-4 decision. Two years earlier, in 2008, the same justices as who you are referring to also dissented in Columbia v. Heller, and wrote: > #1. Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg, and Justice Breyer join, dissenting. The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. > #2. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join, dissenting. I take as a starting point the following four propositions, based on our precedent and today’s opinions, to which I believe the entire Court subscribes: (1) The Amendment protects an “individual” right—i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred. [...] I shall, as I said, assume with the majority that the Amendment, in addition to furthering a militia-related purpose, also furthers an interest in possessing guns for purposes of self-defense, at least to some degree. Even the dissenting votes agree that the right to bear arms individually for self-defense is a right protected by the Second Amendment, at least to some degree. Their dissenting votes are based on a disagreement about the scope of that protection, and how it interacts with competing interests in those cases. The dissent involves questions like whether the Second Amendment is incorporated by the due process clause.