Second Amendment - Topic 6

 

2nd Amendment, Sale and Distribution - Topic 6

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.

Here is the last topic - the sale and distribution of weapons - before looking at the overall gun situation.

The above reproduction of the Second Amendment states nothing about the sale and distribution of the "arms" that one may bear. Thus no suggestions or current practices on sales are in violation of this Amendment. Proposals and regulations have to be considered with original intent in mind. Everything keeps coming back to that - interpretation.

As stated in one of the previous topics, regulations or practices regarding sale and distribution varies by state and by situation. Professional sellers of weapons are certainly regulated federally but not so much by state. If you sell a gun to a friend or at a gun show or garage sale, there is no regulation. Need I go further?

This in effect negates any legitimate regulation. If I want to go on a rampage and do my own mass shooting, I can buy any weapon I want off the street or from a neighbour. There will also be no background check - just slap down my cash and start shooting.

Once again letting reason interfere with passion, here are some suggestions:

1. Any vendor at a gun show must be a registered seller - no private sales. That vendor must conduct and show proof of a valid background check on the purchaser (no minors, no mental disorders, no prior serious weapons offences). This does not prevent illegal yard sales for example but it is one large step for mankind!
2. Such sellers should lose their license to sell if they violate this.
3. A purchaser should also have to register a purchase. This does not violate anything in the 2nd. You need to register a car which is not intended to kill so why not a gun? I know this argument is as old as the controversy but it is still valid.
4. Rapid-fire assault weapons should not be sold to the public - does not violate the 2nd. Yup - heard it all before - they are "arms" so they should be available. Today assault weapons, tomorrow tanks in every driveway.
5. As mentioned before, if you can't regulate the gun sale then regulate the ammunition sale. This will really make gun owners go wild but the 2nd does not preclude this approach. Naturally, the manufacture of your own ammo would have to be part of this.

I could go on but why waste the space? We know what the reaction will be. There is enough here to make a big impact - like the impact of one of those rounds hitting a body.

That is enough food for thought, both of rational thinkers and the not so rational. In subsequent posts I will address the tough part: what to do about all of this, if anything.

Thanks for reading this far.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 5

 

2nd Amendment, not Applicable in Special locations? - Topic 5

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.

This one should be easy but as stated before, nothing about the second amendment is easy.

What I have read with only minimal research (Google research so it must be true!) is that state and federal legislation on this is all over the map - literally. That goes for almost everything about the 2nd Amendment.

So here are some places where I would suggest guns should be prohibited. When reading them ask yourselves "Would the authors of the Second have any reason to disagree with these?" Federal laws are consistent with many of them. In many locations State laws are not:

• government buildings. (Some states restrict carrying in some state buildings but not others)
• courthouses
• schools
• hospitals
• airports and planes (other than security forces)
• bars or any other places where people and their emotions are liable to be under the influence of a substance like alcohol or drugs including sporting events
• any private business or property where the owner decides to disallow guns. This latitude is constantly under attack
• banks
• police stations
• churches
• parks
• public transit
• nudist colonies (just kidding to see if you got this far)

Even where these apply there are differences regarding concealed or open carry restrictions. What difference does this make? Is the thinking that if you can carry an open weapon the other guy/girl has a better chance of reaching theirs if they see you reaching for yours? Sound like Dodge City? 

My take on this is something that applies to all of these locations. Turn it around and ask why does anyone require a gun in any of these locations? The answer for the gun owners/lovers will always be for protection - against some other person.

If fear of the other person is the big issue, then I have two suggestions, expensive as they might be.1) Such locations all have securely locked entrances. 2) An armed guard searches/scans for weapons outside that entrance with mandatory temporary surrender of weapons until the owners leave. The weapons would be locked up and only the guard could unlock them.

One more idea would be to work towards standardizing all of these locations and restrictions across federal and state jurisdictions. Then at least everyone would have to abide by one set of rules.

This leaves one more topic - 6 - before summarizing the entire subject and possibly making suggestions.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 4

 

 2nd Amendment, Case for Gun Rights Denial - Topic 4

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.

Today's topic is another heated one. Are there certain groups of people who should be denied firearms under any circumstances?

Mature adults have to include at least one - children. Surely the authors of the amendment would have assumed this one. As mentioned days ago the question then becomes at what age? If there are minimum ages for drinking or driving does it not make sense to use the same age here? Nixon signed an extension to a bill to require voters to be at least 18. Should you own deadly weapons before you can even vote?

If you agree that children - whose brains, powers of reason, emotions etc. are not yet developed but will, why allow the mentally handicapped to have guns when their same traits won't develop?

That leaves criminals. How can anyone think that a person who has already used a gun illegally, won't do it again? Using the same analogy as above, if repeat offenders can lose their right to drive, why not the right to shoot? In my opinion a person found to break the law while using a gun should not only forfeit all their guns they should suffer severe consequences if they are found to acquire new ones. The seller should be included.

Here is one approach that is simple. Nobody outside of police, conventional military personnel including guardsmen federal and state, and possibly private but licensed security companies and bodyguards should be allowed to carry firearms - NOBODY. Now we all know the immediate reaction will be that the bad guys will still carry. How do other countries control that? I can only suggest severe penalties for those who carry illegally; even worse for those who supply them; and spot checks - LOTS of them - by police or other designated groups any time and any place to enforce a no carry law.

In times of war the military will supply the necessary firepower, not Tom, Dick, and Harriet. Those days are long gone. The British are not coming.

It isn't going to be easy. Nobody, including me, is saying that.

To be continued...

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 3

 2nd Amendment, Militias - Topic 3

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.

In my post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Topic 3 is today's subject, the meaning of the word "Militia."

Was the use of the term "Militia" in reference to (1) the need some day to fight off a foreign attack (keeping the War of Independence in mind); (2) the right of each of the (United) states to do the same against each other; or (3) the need for state(s) to rebel against Federal government?

(1) One of the backbones of America and one of its greatest points of pride is how disparate people banded together to free themselves from British oppression. Despite the superior British experience, they lost as we all know and America was born. That was almost 250 years ago. Since then The United States of America has shown her strength to the world by uniting those very peoples whenever needed especially to go to other countries and fight with allies against common enemies. The notion of having to fight off an intruder on a moments notice with self-armed militias is not realistic today.

In fact if America were to have another internal or civil war there is a very good chance other great nations like China or Russia would take advantage while she is down to attack if they were ever going to do so. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" is a fact of history.

Since that War of Independence the need for the ultimate armed forces has become even more important but not using whatever you have in your basement, garage, or pickup truck. Therefore it seems at least to me that state militias to defend America are an obsolete notion. Maintaining superior national armed forces is surely the best defense.

(2) and (3) If the "Militia" was to permit one state to wage actual war with another or to overthrow a central government (with a weaker militia?) then again I say in today's world America would be doomed. This could have happened on January 6, 2021. Thank God Federal and loyal state forces ("militias" if you prefer) fended off an internal attack - and that is exactly what it was.

Therefore any use of militias in any of the scenarios mentioned above would likely spell doom for the country. Is this why the amendment was created? I hardly think so.

One more observation: where in The Constitution does it say or was it ever intended that if one group or another in the world's model democracy disliked the result of an election or what any politician stood for, the unhappy party should grab some "arms" and proceed to hang or shoot those politicians? Is THAT what the amendment was for? Once again - NOT!

So ironically, this leaves the most popular argument in favor of Americans owning guns - personal protection. When your read the amendment (See 1st paragraph, above) personal protection is not even mentioned nor can I see how it is implied.

It is difficult to come up with a good analogy. Perhaps this is like forming a group of volunteer firefighters for a remote area. If they are granted the right to use a flashing light and a siren on their private vehicle it would be for the occasional need to rush to very rare fires. It would never be intended to get to your regular job on time if you were late. This would be like using firearms for personal use, not that of being a member of a militia.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 2

 

 2nd Amendment, Federal or State - Topic 2

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.

In my post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Topic 2 is today's subject, the nature and purpose of the arms themselves.

In dictionaries I consulted arms and weapons reference each other. They appear to be synonyms. Both can include objects or devices used to fight, harm, overpower or even kill another being or living thing. In that sense even other species possess weapons. Weapons evolved over time from natural sticks and stones to those shaped or rendered to be more effective. We have all heard of arrows, knives, slingshots, spears, swords, lances, clubs, and even other tools like axes and pitchforks being used in both defensive and offensive manners. Humans alone have continually perfected our weapons and the means to mass-produce them. We are discussing human weapons today.

During the times of the second amendment common weapons were single shot flintlocks, muskets and cannons. In battle there were also swords, knives, and spears. Nobody could have possibly anticipated modern weaponry including tanks, machine guns, automatic pistols and assault weapons capable of tearing a body to pieces in mere seconds.

In any calm rational setting, it seems to most outside America and many inside, that these kinds of weapons were never intended for personal protection of family and property. For purposes of international war and defending ones country - with arms and militias, the opposite is true.

Many argue that the second amendment does not list arms that you can't possess or things you can not do with them - therefore anything goes. I do not subscribe to this. It is not stated that five year old kids can't bear arms and shoot their friends but similar things have happened. Also not prohibited is the ownership of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead parked in your drive - ditto for an F18 or other fighter jet.

I am being pedantic because the authors of the 2nd Amendment assumed a certain degree of common sense on the part of governments and citizens. To many of us that appears to have been a false assumption. If anything in the previous paragraph seems to be "obvious", then where do you draw the line between what the authors intended and what not?

In the American system of government the courts are the final decision makers but on major issues associated with this topic they have opted out.

One tactic which I suggest is to approach the USE of arms covered by the amendment. As stated above this is also not defined so no rights would be infringed upon. Some laws address this such as robbing a bank using a weapon especially when people are injured or killed. Surely this can be expanded for other personal use of firearms. Associated with this would be prohibiting criminals who have been found guilty of previous crimes using weapons and those with known mental disabilities (to be defined). Would the authors of the amendment have objected?

How can anyone say it is OK for someone who knocks on a door for directions or who enters a house by mistake to be shot dead? In some states all the owner has to do is say they felt threatened or that they felt that their space was invaded. I don't have the answer but many people are elected and paid big bucks to come up with such answers or compromises. There is one of the biggest problems. Gun owners don't want to compromise.

Once again this will be discussed further in my final post on the Second Amendment. Please feel free to leave comments.

#thebrewsterblock