5 ms·

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not specify that every person has that right, just that the community in general does. Having licensing requi

The right of the people to keep and bear arms does not specify that every person has that right, just that the community in general does. Having licensing requirements hasn't noticeably restricted the people of the USA from keeping and using automobiles.

gnarbarian 12y ago
That sounds like a personal interpretation as opposed to the judicial one. Which has been tested numerous times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The fact that not everyone in the USA has the right is pretty well established, such as convicted felons or the mentally disturbed. Also, there is an existing permit system in operation for extending gun rights, such as concealed carry. All a licence would do is codify an expected level of responsibility that already exists anyway in the laws concerning guns. Besides, if someone can't stay within the confines of basic range safety for the hour or so it would take to pass a test, then perhaps they shouldn't have a gun. I accept that the current legal interpretation is not currently in that direction, however I'll also note that it has changed several times and that recent court cases have come out against gun registration, but not as far as I am aware against a gun license being required for purchase, as you are allowed state laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
  - gnarbarian 12y ago
    The thing I think is funny about all this is people who wish to lessen our gun rights constantly talk about compromise but are never willing to give anything up. I'd be willing to jump through a few hoops to get rid of the Hughes amendment [1] What would you consider a fair trade for this? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
chroma 12y ago
Some people still try to interpret the 2nd amendment that way, but DC v. Heller[1] made handgun ownership an individual right. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  The devil is in the details. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
  - chroma 12y ago
    Felons and the mentally ill have many of their rights curtailed. Voting is an individual right, but felons typically can't vote. Mentally ill people can be imprisoned and forcefully drugged. Individuals can be deprived of rights so long as there is due process.

gnarbarian 12y ago

That sounds like a personal interpretation as opposed to the judicial one. Which has been tested numerous times. http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

lotsofmangos 12y ago
The fact that not everyone in the USA has the right is pretty well established, such as convicted felons or the mentally disturbed. Also, there is an existing permit system in operation for extending gun rights, such as concealed carry. All a licence would do is codify an expected level of responsibility that already exists anyway in the laws concerning guns. Besides, if someone can't stay within the confines of basic range safety for the hour or so it would take to pass a test, then perhaps they shouldn't have a gun. I accept that the current legal interpretation is not currently in that direction, however I'll also note that it has changed several times and that recent court cases have come out against gun registration, but not as far as I am aware against a gun license being required for purchase, as you are allowed state laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
- gnarbarian 12y ago
  The thing I think is funny about all this is people who wish to lessen our gun rights constantly talk about compromise but are never willing to give anything up. I'd be willing to jump through a few hoops to get rid of the Hughes amendment [1] What would you consider a fair trade for this? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

chroma 12y ago

Some people still try to interpret the 2nd amendment that way, but DC v. Heller[1] made handgun ownership an individual right. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

lotsofmangos 12y ago
The devil is in the details. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
- chroma 12y ago
  Felons and the mentally ill have many of their rights curtailed. Voting is an individual right, but felons typically can't vote. Mentally ill people can be imprisoned and forcefully drugged. Individuals can be deprived of rights so long as there is due process.