5 ms·

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala. Countries that don't have that baked into their foundational documentation have an easier time actually putting regulations into place and enforcing them. Because the right to guns is in our charter, it makes regulation much more difficult to implement and enforce (not to mention, much more unpopular because to many folks it feels like a betrayal of the charter). That's what makes the US different than most other countries in that regard.

seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> Because the right to guns is in our charter, it makes regulation much more difficult to implement and enforce (not to mention, much more unpopular because to many folks it feels like a betrayal of the charter). There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. The interpretation of the second amendment therefore has undergone a lot of change over time, and is now interpreted way more broadly than it was in the early years of the country (i.e. when many of the founding fathers were still alive). An interpretation where the militia clause was largely meaningless didn't really come into vogue until the 1970s, and the NRA has a version of the 2nd amendment on its headquarters that edits it out.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  my understanding is the exact opposite. how odd. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well regulated means well armed. Militia means citizen army, and the people means the people. It is hard to come to a different understanding of the amendment without redefining these terms. My understanding is that those favoring a living constitution focus on the purpose or why of the amendment was there, and and that a citizen militia is not longer necessary.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    It definitely means a well organized militia, like the ones they use to defend Switzerland, which every male belongs to and has to go through a year or two of conscription before they take a gun home.
    - suggestion 4y ago
      A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. Who has the right to keep and eat food, the balanced breakfast or the people?
  - glial 4y ago
    > Well regulated means well armed How do you figure this? Is there judicial precedent for this particular interpretation?
    - himinlomax 4y ago
      There seems to be some (literary, rather than judicial) precedent for that meaning of the expression, but on the other hand I haven't seen conclusive arguments as to why they would have chosen that particular turn of phrase to say something other than "governed by rules." Consider another part of the US Constitution, the Commerce clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" In this case "Regulate" is clearly used to mean the action of setting rules. It's a bit weird that they would use that word again in a legal context to mean something non-legal.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        Even if it were taken to mean regulate, in terms of rule setting, you still have to deal with the fact that the right is assigned to "the people", and not the state militias. The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. These instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. As the SCOTUS found in Heller, The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
- torstenvl 4y ago
  > There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. Nobody says it's meaningless, it just doesn't mean what gun control proponents want it to mean, due to (a) a purpose, even a stated one, not being a limit on Constitutional rights; and (b) what the word "militia" means in the text. (a) "The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting." District of Columbia v. Heller. There are numerous rights in the Constitution that are not limited solely to their original or documented purpose. The equal protection clause protects against gender, sex, and sexuality discrimination just as much as it protects against discrimination based on race or condition of former servitude. The First Amendment protects artistic expression and personal speech just as much as it protects political speech. A documented purpose does not limit the applicability of a Constitutional right. (b) It is nearly a century-old precedent that the militia refers to every able-bodied man, not just those in, e.g., the National Guard. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939). That is why "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," District of Columbia v. Heller, rather than being created by Congress or a state.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    "District of Columbia v. Heller" was in 2008, and was the first time the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment allowed the right to bear arms outside of a well organized militia. In fact, they had 4 chances to to do that in the early 20th century alone, passing on it. It was only with a more conservative court that existed recently that the interpretation that the militia clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor case became law of the land.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - torstenvl 4y ago
      You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Importantly, their reasoning was not that the Second Amendment does not protect individual rights, but that such a firearm had no reasonable relationship to contributing to the common defense. It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179. Twenty-first century gun control proponents seem to suggest that it only pertains to those in the National Guard or another milita-like body organized by statue (e.g., the Texas State Guard), but that is simply not the case and never has been.
rufus_foreman 4y ago
>> As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala That's what it says at https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05/how-many-countries-have-gun-rights-enshrined-in-their-constitutions/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05/how-many-countries-have..., along with the note that the US "is the only one that does not explicitly include a restrictive condition".
skissane 4y ago
> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. The irony here is that this court strikes down a clause of the Gun Control Act 1968 on the grounds that it is "not consistent with the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'" – and yet the very Supreme Court precedents it is applying in doing so are themselves not consistent with that tradition. The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. Then the 14th Amendment was enacted, to try to prevent the defeated Confederate states from oppressing the newly freed slaves. Nobody at the time thought it had any relevance to non-discriminatory gun laws. I think its framers would have supported its use to overturn racially discriminatory state or local gun laws, but they would have seen racially neutral gun regulation as outside its intended scope. The idea that non-discriminatory state and local (as opposed to federal) gun laws can violate the combination of the 2nd and 14th Amendments was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2010 (McDonald v Chicago). There is no evidence that the original authors of either Amendment would have foresaw or expected that outcome, and so was a major deviation from the "the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'". The Gun Control Act 1968 is of course a federal law, so overturning it is not prima facie inconsistent with the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, the logic of the decision (and the precedents it is based on) apply equally to equivalent state and local gun laws and regulations, which is a radical deviation from the original intentions behind the 2nd and 14th Amendments.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  >The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. How do you figure this? The other rights assigned to the people in the bill of rights can not be infringed by states. For example, states can not pass laws which restrict free speech.
Maursault 4y ago
> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation Not in the way that NRA nor gun rights activists think nor claim. 1. The Founding Fathers were devoted to the militia.[1] 2. The amendment’s primary justification was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army.[1] 3. The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms.[1] 4. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.[1] Anyone wishing for a return to an original meaning of the Second Amendment — where no one was a professional soldier, but everyone would be required to participate in the militia — would find themselves far from the political mainstream.[1] If you want to make an argument about founding documents and classical interpretation, that's fine, but then we're going to be required to adopt the Framers' intent (which is undeniable as summarized above when examining the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses), and ignore and remove any subsequently introduced individual right to bear arms,[2] and gun owners will be required to join the National Guard. I am all for it. And I'm not sure why in this ruling "tradition" is given so much weight. There was no tradition of personal rights to arms until well, well after the turn of the 20th Century, so the NRA was very late to invent this tradition.[2] If 1968 is not old enough for tradition, then how is it that 1950 is? Is the 13th Amendment in jeopardy of being a violation of the somehow new legal supremacy of tradition? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-...

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> Because the right to guns is in our charter, it makes regulation much more difficult to implement and enforce (not to mention, much more unpopular because to many folks it feels like a betrayal of the charter). There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. The interpretation of the second amendment therefore has undergone a lot of change over time, and is now interpreted way more broadly than it was in the early years of the country (i.e. when many of the founding fathers were still alive). An interpretation where the militia clause was largely meaningless didn't really come into vogue until the 1970s, and the NRA has a version of the 2nd amendment on its headquarters that edits it out.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
my understanding is the exact opposite. how odd. >A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Well regulated means well armed. Militia means citizen army, and the people means the people. It is hard to come to a different understanding of the amendment without redefining these terms. My understanding is that those favoring a living constitution focus on the purpose or why of the amendment was there, and and that a citizen militia is not longer necessary.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  It definitely means a well organized militia, like the ones they use to defend Switzerland, which every male belongs to and has to go through a year or two of conscription before they take a gun home.
  - suggestion 4y ago
    A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. Who has the right to keep and eat food, the balanced breakfast or the people?
- glial 4y ago
  > Well regulated means well armed How do you figure this? Is there judicial precedent for this particular interpretation?
  - himinlomax 4y ago
    There seems to be some (literary, rather than judicial) precedent for that meaning of the expression, but on the other hand I haven't seen conclusive arguments as to why they would have chosen that particular turn of phrase to say something other than "governed by rules." Consider another part of the US Constitution, the Commerce clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;" In this case "Regulate" is clearly used to mean the action of setting rules. It's a bit weird that they would use that word again in a legal context to mean something non-legal.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      Even if it were taken to mean regulate, in terms of rule setting, you still have to deal with the fact that the right is assigned to "the people", and not the state militias. The unamended Constitution and the Bill of Rights use the phrase “right of the people” two other times, in the First Amendment’s Assembly-and-Petition Clause and in the Fourth Amendment’s Search-and-Seizure Clause. These instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not “collective” rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body. As the SCOTUS found in Heller, The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
torstenvl 4y ago
> There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. Nobody says it's meaningless, it just doesn't mean what gun control proponents want it to mean, due to (a) a purpose, even a stated one, not being a limit on Constitutional rights; and (b) what the word "militia" means in the text. (a) "The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting." District of Columbia v. Heller. There are numerous rights in the Constitution that are not limited solely to their original or documented purpose. The equal protection clause protects against gender, sex, and sexuality discrimination just as much as it protects against discrimination based on race or condition of former servitude. The First Amendment protects artistic expression and personal speech just as much as it protects political speech. A documented purpose does not limit the applicability of a Constitutional right. (b) It is nearly a century-old precedent that the militia refers to every able-bodied man, not just those in, e.g., the National Guard. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939). That is why "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," District of Columbia v. Heller, rather than being created by Congress or a state.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  "District of Columbia v. Heller" was in 2008, and was the first time the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment allowed the right to bear arms outside of a well organized militia. In fact, they had 4 chances to to do that in the early 20th century alone, passing on it. It was only with a more conservative court that existed recently that the interpretation that the militia clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor case became law of the land.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - torstenvl 4y ago
    You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Importantly, their reasoning was not that the Second Amendment does not protect individual rights, but that such a firearm had no reasonable relationship to contributing to the common defense. It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179. Twenty-first century gun control proponents seem to suggest that it only pertains to those in the National Guard or another milita-like body organized by statue (e.g., the Texas State Guard), but that is simply not the case and never has been.

rufus_foreman 4y ago

>> As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala That's what it says at https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05/how-many-countries-have-gun-rights-enshrined-in-their-constitutions/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05/how-many-countries-have..., along with the note that the US "is the only one that does not explicitly include a restrictive condition".

skissane 4y ago

> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. The irony here is that this court strikes down a clause of the Gun Control Act 1968 on the grounds that it is "not consistent with the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'" – and yet the very Supreme Court precedents it is applying in doing so are themselves not consistent with that tradition. The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. Then the 14th Amendment was enacted, to try to prevent the defeated Confederate states from oppressing the newly freed slaves. Nobody at the time thought it had any relevance to non-discriminatory gun laws. I think its framers would have supported its use to overturn racially discriminatory state or local gun laws, but they would have seen racially neutral gun regulation as outside its intended scope. The idea that non-discriminatory state and local (as opposed to federal) gun laws can violate the combination of the 2nd and 14th Amendments was introduced by the Supreme Court in 2010 (McDonald v Chicago). There is no evidence that the original authors of either Amendment would have foresaw or expected that outcome, and so was a major deviation from the "the United States' 'historical tradition of firearm regulation'". The Gun Control Act 1968 is of course a federal law, so overturning it is not prima facie inconsistent with the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment. However, the logic of the decision (and the precedents it is based on) apply equally to equivalent state and local gun laws and regulations, which is a radical deviation from the original intentions behind the 2nd and 14th Amendments.

s1artibartfast 4y ago
>The 2nd Amendment was only intended to be a limit on federal gun laws; its authors didn't intend it to apply to the states, and nobody at the time understood it as doing so. Whether and to what extent state and local governments could regulate gun ownership was seen as a matter for state constitutions and state courts, not something the federal government (in any of its three branches) should get involved in. How do you figure this? The other rights assigned to the people in the bill of rights can not be infringed by states. For example, states can not pass laws which restrict free speech.

Maursault 4y ago

> Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation Not in the way that NRA nor gun rights activists think nor claim. 1. The Founding Fathers were devoted to the militia.[1] 2. The amendment’s primary justification was to prevent the United States from needing a standing army.[1] 3. The authors of the Bill of Rights were not concerned with an “individual” or “personal” right to bear arms.[1] 4. The Founding Fathers were very concerned about who should, or should not, be armed.[1] Anyone wishing for a return to an original meaning of the Second Amendment — where no one was a professional soldier, but everyone would be required to participate in the militia — would find themselves far from the political mainstream.[1] If you want to make an argument about founding documents and classical interpretation, that's fine, but then we're going to be required to adopt the Framers' intent (which is undeniable as summarized above when examining the minutes of the Constitutional Congresses), and ignore and remove any subsequently introduced individual right to bear arms,[2] and gun owners will be required to join the National Guard. I am all for it. And I'm not sure why in this ruling "tradition" is given so much weight. There was no tradition of personal rights to arms until well, well after the turn of the 20th Century, so the NRA was very late to invent this tradition.[2] If 1968 is not old enough for tradition, then how is it that 1950 is? Is the 13th Amendment in jeopardy of being a violation of the somehow new legal supremacy of tradition? [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/... [2] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-...