Comments on: D.C., DOA

By: Lucas

Lucas — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:24:48 +0000

Kip, yes, I understand that. But I guess, my point was, that the “for self-defense” and “not excessively dangerous” is *NOT* in the constitution…. While any reasonable person would agree with the logical compromise in setting limits on interpretation of “bear arms” to exclude excessively dangerous weapons and such, however, it then becomes a slippery slope, where a line is drawn at gun ownership. It seems, that the line drawn to include or exclude gun ownership is completely arbitrary, depending solely on one’s take on what “self-defense” and “excessively dangerous” mean.

What all of this usually boils down to, is the right of private citizens to the use of deadly force in “self defense”. Now, given that the line for limits on the 2nd amendment is drawn arbitrarily, gun ownership becomes a matter of “preference”. My amazement in these matters is always, what makes gun ownership so special to warrant such a passionate advocacy.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:54:23 +0000

Lucas, the opinion is littered with references to “for self-defense” and “not excessively dangerous” and similar language.

Indeed the old 1939 case, Miller, which rejected the “individual rights” view, was a case about sawed-off shotguns, which even this Court says are not covered by the Second Amendment, at least not in public.

By: Lucas

Lucas — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:21:38 +0000

The 2nd amendment give the right of the people to bear arms — but it does not explicitly say which ones. So, could the state not make the case that, the government can certainly prohibit certain types of armory, but not *ALL* types of armory. So, even though the state may prohibit gun ownership, for example, it does not mean a person cannot own a knife or a sword.

Could the case not be argued, then, that prohibition on ownership of biological weapons with a targeted delivery system (like anthrax spray bottle of some sort) cannot be enforced, because it constitute a right for their owners to bear arms? Would the same not apply to bombs (nuclear or otherwise)?

How about outlawing bullets? — you can own the gun, but not the bullets (except for rubber ones)

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 20:00:05 +0000

While I agree with a lot of what you post here, I think I might have to disagree here. Is there any reason to believe that the people who will now carry concealed weapons were not doing that before? That is, would people who obeyed the handgun ban ignore the concealed weapon ban?

I’m also a bit surprised that you cited an opinion that suggested handgun laws could be a way to keep “those folks” off the streets when there was insufficient legal reason to do so otherwise. That’s the exact opposite of the way I want the police to be treating me, or anyone for that matter.

By: KipEsquire

KipEsquire — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 19:24:41 +0000

From the opinion:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. … [N]othing in our opinion should 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.

You:

An awful lot of people aren’t going to be keeping their “piece” tucked away in the nightstand for home protections. A good many of them are going to be carrying them around for whatever purposes, some of them less-than-lawful.

Non sequitur. Criminals use legal objects for illegal purposes all the time. That is simply not enough of a reason to infringe upon the rights of non-criminals to access those objects.

Bottom line: Courts don’t kill people; people kill people.