4 ms·

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun purchasing.

by sam36 7y ago

lumberjack 7y ago
In the same way that money gets in the way of the right of people to own property.
rtkwe 7y ago
That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law works under at all. Under that all of the current restrictions on purchase would be illegal including felon, drug addict, domestic violence, and non-citizen and those are strong, I don't think I've seen any meaningful challenge to those today. Buying from any legal store you must go through a NICS check and can be denied or delayed. [0] [0] Except in cases where you have a CCW (which you go through a background check to get already), a purchase permit (many states require a check from the sherrif or similar office before buying a handgun) or some other similar stand in that does something significantly similar to the NICS checks.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law works under at all. It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right, we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry. It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and fair reading.[1] I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that. [1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun ownership to formal militias. > Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
  - mantap 7y ago
    Surely putting a person on a registry and putting a gun on a registry are different things? A gun is physical object, it has a location that is independent of its owner's location. The US doesn't keep a registry of people with minority religions but it does keep registries of religious buildings where people congregate.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      Gun registry proposals universally require recording the gun’s owner: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/ https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-own... The US doesn’t keep registries of religious buildings either. There’s obviously titles and whatnot for buildings. But it would likely be deemed a constitutional violation to require registration of every place that would be used to hold religious services. Some in Germany have proposed a “mosque registry”: https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-mosque-registry/a-38200982 https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-....
    - Reelin 7y ago
      I believe religious buildings in the US are only registered due to tax status? I'm under no obligation to register my house if I start holding congregations here. A much more accurate analogy might be a registry for religious paraphernalia (crosses, rosaries, etc), including information about the purchaser. Such items are tied to an individual, and thus serve as a very effective proxy.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun purchasing.

by sam36 7y ago

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" "Infringed" can certainly be read as any process that gets in the way of gun purchasing.

lumberjack 7y ago

In the same way that money gets in the way of the right of people to own property.

rtkwe 7y ago

That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law works under at all. Under that all of the current restrictions on purchase would be illegal including felon, drug addict, domestic violence, and non-citizen and those are strong, I don't think I've seen any meaningful challenge to those today. Buying from any legal store you must go through a NICS check and can be denied or delayed. [0] [0] Except in cases where you have a CCW (which you go through a background check to get already), a purchase permit (many states require a check from the sherrif or similar office before buying a handgun) or some other similar stand in that does something significantly similar to the NICS checks.

rayiner 7y ago
> That's basically the maximalist interpretation and that's not the one US law works under at all. It’s not a “maximalist” interpretation. With nearly any other federal right, we’d agree that maintaining a registry of people exercising that right would impermissibly create a chilling effect. You can be a member of a minority religion, but only if you place yourself on a registry! You can exercise freedom of speech or assembly, but only if you put yourself on a registry. It’s not maximalist, it’s giving an enumerated constitutional right a full and fair reading.[1] I do agree that the existing precedent in the area has been impoverished. The Supreme Court has important work to do correcting that. [1] The framers were gun nuts and would have been troubled by the decline of gun ownership. The idea that you have a civic duty to own firearms would be closer to the original intent than the idea that the government can limit gun ownership to formal militias. > Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops. – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
- mantap 7y ago
  Surely putting a person on a registry and putting a gun on a registry are different things? A gun is physical object, it has a location that is independent of its owner's location. The US doesn't keep a registry of people with minority religions but it does keep registries of religious buildings where people congregate.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    Gun registry proposals universally require recording the gun’s owner: https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-owner-responsibilities/registration/ https://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-own... The US doesn’t keep registries of religious buildings either. There’s obviously titles and whatnot for buildings. But it would likely be deemed a constitutional violation to require registration of every place that would be used to hold religious services. Some in Germany have proposed a “mosque registry”: https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-mosque-registry/a-38200982 https://www.dw.com/en/german-politician-wants-islam-law-and-....
  - Reelin 7y ago
    I believe religious buildings in the US are only registered due to tax status? I'm under no obligation to register my house if I start holding congregations here. A much more accurate analogy might be a registry for religious paraphernalia (crosses, rosaries, etc), including information about the purchaser. Such items are tied to an individual, and thus serve as a very effective proxy.