A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[sgtclub]

• San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.
  
  The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.
  
  The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

Come visit D.C. sometime. You don't even need the incorporation doctrine here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub

• San Francisco supervisors want voters to approve a sweeping handgun ban that would prohibit almost everyone except law enforcement officers, security guards and military members from possessing firearms in the city.
  
  The measure, which will appear on the municipal ballot next year, would bar residents from keeping guns in their homes or businesses, Bill Barnes, an aide to Supervisor Chris Daly, said Wednesday. It would also prohibit the sale, manufacturing and distribution of handguns and ammunition in San Francisco, as well as the transfer of gun licenses.

"military members" = militia

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Come visit D.C. sometime. You don't even need the incorporation doctrine here.

Has it been challenged in DC?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
"military members" = militia

By its express terms, the second amendment grants the right to bear arms to the people as a whole, not just those who may be active members of a militia.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

On rights after death, I was trying to make points about mortality and psychology and semantics, not about the law. We sometimes talk about a conceit that you have a right to determine how your property is allocated after you die. But you're dead. You don't have any rights. You don't exist any more. That's it. Notwithstanding, it makes a lot of sense for a variety of reasons to respect the wishes of the dead, not least because it avoids a lot of fighting among members of the living whose competing entitlements would need to be entangled. When we talk about a particular dead person's wealth, the dead person is no longer interested -- we are talking about the children's rights to enjoy that wealth instead of each other or the rest of us.

Now, the fact that we don't like to acknowledge that we're going to die and that other people will be living in our houses, driving our cars, and squandering our loot leads us to pretend otherwise. That's the psychological point.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By its express terms, the second amendment grants the right to bear arms to the people as a whole, not just those who may be active members of a militia.

True, read strictly. Do you read the reference to well-ordered militia as adding no meaning? Is the right to bear arms absolute?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
By its express terms, the second amendment grants the right to bear arms to the people as a whole, not just those who may be active members of a militia.

By its express terms, the Second Amendment grants a right the countours of which are defined by militia service. Just as the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to say anything, anytime -- think fire and theaters -- the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to bear any weapon whenever you want. Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment specifies the principle to be applied in deciding the contours of that right -- the furtherance of a "well regulated Militia."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
True, read strictly. Do you read the reference to well-ordered militia as adding no meaning? Is the right to bear arms absolute?

If we're going to get Socratic, I have more questions for club:

(1) Do we construe the Second Amendment in accord with the framers' understanding? If so, why doesn't that mean that the right to bear "arms" only applies to flintlock rifles and the like?

(2) Do average citizens have the right to bear flamethrowers, grenades, and other infantry weapons? If not, why not?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
By its express terms, the Second Amendment grants a right the countours of which are defined by militia service. Just as the First Amendment doesn't give you the right to say anything, anytime -- think fire and theaters -- the Second Amendment doesn't give you the right to bear any weapon whenever you want. Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment specifies the principle to be applied in deciding the contours of that right -- the furtherance of a "well regulated Militia."

Read strictly, then, perhaps licensed gun ownership in the United States could constitute a contractual obligation to serve in the United States Armed Forces during a time of War. Licensed gun owners could then be inducted into service when the national interest requires it.

Hey, Hank, problem solved!

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If we're going to get Socratic, I have more questions for club:

(1) Do we construe the Second Amendment in accord with the framers' understanding? If so, why doesn't that mean that the right to bear "arms" only applies to flintlock rifles and the like?

(2) Do average citizens have the right to bear flamethrowers, grenades, and other infantry weapons? If not, why not?

Don't get too far ahead. We haven't gotten to ask him yet what the term "militia" meant at a point in time when the permanent army numbered 80 men, with no plan of exceeding 700 outside of wartime.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
True, read strictly. Do you read the reference to well-ordered militia as adding no meaning? Is the right to bear arms absolute?

No, I tend to agree with Ty that it should be viewed with reference to what would be in furtherance of the militia. But that really isn't much of a limit, is it? Point is, it is a right granted to the people, and I thought Ty's initial post suggested only militia members had the right.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Read strictly, then, perhaps licensed gun ownership in the United States could constitute a contractual obligation to serve in the United States Armed Forces during a time of War. Licensed gun owners could then be inducted into service when the national interest requires it.

Hey, Hank, problem solved!

Most of the framers probably would have had less objection to this concept than to anything else posted pro- or anti-gun in the last few dozen posts.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If we're going to get Socratic, I have more questions for club:

(1) Do we construe the Second Amendment in accord with the framers' understanding? If so, why doesn't that mean that the right to bear "arms" only applies to flintlock rifles and the like?

No, I think intent is hog wash. I just look at the words on the page.

(2) Do average citizens have the right to bear flamethrowers, grenades, and other infantry weapons? If not, why not?

Seems to me that those would be necessary for a well-regulated militia, so I guess the answer is yes.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by sgtclub
No, I tend to agree with Ty that it should be viewed with reference to what would be in furtherance of the militia. But that really isn't much of a limit, is it? Point is, it is a right granted to the people, and I thought Ty's initial post suggested only militia members had the right.

I'm not sure I understand this. If the right to bear arms is a right that should be regulated based on furthering the militia, why would anyone not eligible for call-up need a right to bear an arm?