NY-23: Winning Democrat Bill Owens was A-rated by NRA (as was Hoffman).
Virginia: Either Deeds (B rating) or McDonnell (A) were sure to be a big improvement over outgoing Governor Kaine. Deeds lost the NRA endorsement by supporting closing of the (non-existent) “gun show loophole.” In the Attorney General race, Republican Ken Cuccinelli (A+) handily defeated a D-rated Democrat who advertised very aggressively on the gun show issue. Incumbent Lt. Gov. Bill Bolling (A+) trounced an F-rated challenger.
In the Virginia House of Delegates, five Republican challengers with A ratings ousted Democratic incumbents rated F,F,B,B,B. A C-rated Republican also unseated an F Democrat incumbent. The House of Delegates already had a fairly solid pro-Second Amendment majority, so the major change in Virginia is a new Governor who, like former Governor and current Senator Mark Warner (Dem.), will sign rights-enhancing legislation passed by the legislature.
By far the most prominent gun control advocate on the ballot this year was Jon Corzine (F). This summer, Corzine twisted lots of legislative arms to win enactment of gun rationing (“one-handgun-a-month”), a silly law that is even sillier in New Jersey, where every handgun purchase requires advance permission from the local police chief. With Christie replacing Corzine, New Jersey gun owners can hope for benign neglect rather than active hostility. The New Jersey Assembly appears to be unchanged.
In sum: A bad night for advocates of gun show restrictions. Another fine night (as were election nights 2006 and 2008) for Democrats with A ratings from NRA. And good news for Second Amendment advocates in blue New Jersey and purple Virginia.
J. Aldridge says:
I think pro-Second Amendment twisters is a more accurate term than “pro-Second Amendment majority.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:03 amMatthew says:
Obviously.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:06 amArrowSmith says:
I can imagine how the HuffPo types will spin this result as somehow positive for them. I guess they feel it’s a repudiation of Sarah Palin somehow.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:19 amLN says:
Thank God left-wing radical Scozzafava (NRA rating: A) was kicked out of the NY-23 race! That election was truly a godsend for the Second Amendment.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:28 amCornellian says:
NY-23 isn’t really a surprise. In very rural areas like that you’re hard pressed to find any advocates of gun control from either party.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:42 amOrin Kerr says:
Thanks for that, Matthew. ;-)
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:51 amzuch says:
Prof. Kopel:
Yes. We need gun shows selling lethal weapons like so much attic and cellar detritus. Old vases don’t kill people. The people who throw them do.
Cheers,
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:54 amKevin P. says:
Grumpy this morning, Zuch?
Go to the range and shoot a few rounds — it will improve your mood.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:34 amSayUncle » About last night says:
[...] Dave Kopel calls last night’s elections Another good night for the Second Amendment. [...]
Joe says:
Where does Mayor Bloomberg (NY) fit here? He has more importance than a member of the House of Representatives.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:24 amOren says:
RKBA-types conceded NYC a long time ago.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:30 amGood Night for the Second Amendment | Snowflakes in Hell says:
[...] Another good night for the Second Amendment, according to Dave Kopel. This is considering higher profile races, where we did indeed succeed. Bitter is currently researching, and will be posting later, how MAIG mayors faired in the elections. NRA did not get involved in mayoral races in Pennsylvania, but by now gun owners are aware, and while we got rid of a lot of MAIG mayors, not all of them we got rid of in head-to-head races. I will let Bitter give you the more informed view of our ongoing battle against MAIG. [...]
Joe says:
RKBA-types conceded NYC a long time ago.
Does this mean that when there is a “good night,” we should just ignore those alleged “lost cause” areas? Seems to stack the deck a tad to target just the good areas. Is it really “good news” that a gun rights person won in a conservative upstate district? What about that Pelosi supporter who won in the CA district? Might be a gun supporter (many libs are), but it would be better news than that.
Heller also allows loads o’regulations, so not sure what “RKBA” requires that Bloomberg would not. For instance, regulations of gun shows — I’m sure many proposed would pass Heller (what the “RKBA” means under current law now) muster. Is gun shows really the be all end all here?
As to benign neglect in NJ ...
Christie has maintained that New Jersey gun laws are “great” and has said, “We don’t have a lack of laws on the books; we have a lack of will among the political folks in the city to enforce all the laws on the books . . . what we need is stricter enforcement of the laws we already have.”
Of course, tough on crime tends to be somewhat selective no matter what party is in office, so there is hope.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:00 amSeaDrive says:
Same as Kirsten Gillibrand?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:31 amPubliusFL says:
No. The point is that there was no chance of losing ground in the “safe” areas (like NY-23, where all candidates had NRA A-ratings), no chance of gaining ground in the “lost cause” areas, but things went quite well for the Second Amendment in races that could have gone either way. So, overall, a good night.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:40 amLarryA says:
When the 111th Congress convened January 6 the Brady folks and the Violence Policy Center shifted into high gear, dancing in the aisles at the thought of large Democratic majorities in both houses and a Democratic gun-control-voting president. They forecast quick passage of HR 45, a new, permanent, more draconian “assault weapons” ban. They anticipated Congress would use that victory to go beyond closing the “gun show loophole” and regulate all private transfers. Once the NRA was crushed they would spring into action and enact some “real” gun control.
Now it’s November. HR 45 is dead in committee and loophole legislation has yet to break the horizon. Instead there have been three pro-gun amendments advanced; D.C. gun rights, firearms in national parks, and national reciprocity. The first was stopped only by withdrawing the D.C. representation bill (a clear case of cutting off your nose to spite your face), the second passed and will be implemented February 22, and the third was within two votes of a filibuster-proof 60 ayes. Each enjoyed majority support in both houses, mainly because in 2009 a third of the Democrats are voting pro-gun.
Sounds like a majority to me.
Actually it’s “Mayor Bloomberg (NYC)” but he forgets that as well. A couple of his pet mayors got unelected during the primaries, and at least two of the governors mentioned above owe part of their defeat to supporting his anti-gun MAIG.
As for NYC, once the Second Amendment is incorporated by the (fingers crossed) Chicago lawsuit, the blatantly discriminatory results of NYC gun registration could make that process low-hanging fruit.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:03 amuberVU - social comments says:
Social comments and analytics for this post...
This post was mentioned on Twitter by eapenthampy: A good night for the 2nd Amendment: http://bit.ly/3k46QW #elections2009...
DonP. says:
Do you wake up every morning in a cold sweat because the law abiding in your area are carrying “lethal weapons” and you don’t know who has a gun and who doesn’t? (Unless you live in Illinois or Wisconsin of course — then you can be comforted that only the criminals have them)
There aren’t separate rules for gun shows about the sale of a gun. The same rules that apply in your living room or a 7/11 parking lot apply there too. Or do you feel that the private sale of any item falls under interstate commerce?
My personal opinion is that criminals probably never buy guns or ammo at gun shows anyway, the prices are just too damn high.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:37 amPLR says:
Never.
I wonder how the Fourth Amendment did last night. Or maybe that’s irrelevant once one has the Magic Bullet for the Magic Gun.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 11:45 amSecond Amendment Rights and the Election - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine says:
[...] At The Volokh Conspiracy, gun rights scholar and Reason contributor David Kopel explains why yesterday was a good day for gun rights: [...]
Gordo says:
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if, now that the individual right to gun ownership is being recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right, if David Kopel is opposed to registration requirements — since the argument that registration will lead to confiscation is now nothing but paranoia.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 12:28 pmPorkchop says:
At least 435 members of the House of Representatives disagree with you — maybe some other people, as well.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:12 pmlimaxray says:
Just out of curiosity, I wonder if, now that the individual right to free speech is being recognized by the Supreme Court as a constitutional right, if Gordo is opposed to registration requirements — since the argument that registration will lead to persecution is now nothing but paranoia.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:16 pmArrowSmith says:
Really? That’s how Hitler/Stalin confiscated all the guns. Vigilance is key! Stop the LIEberal scumbags from taking our guns! I have a right to own 10 AR-15s!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:18 pmCarl from Chicago says:
Well, I would sure hope. I certainly will remain opposed to firearms registration schemes.
But even should Kopel chose to respond to your query, the onus is on Gordo, or people that wish to impose such a scheme. Why would someone support registration schemes ... what interest would they serve? Would they serve compelling governmental interests? Are they narrowly tailored to suit that interest? And are they the lest restrictive means for serving that interest?
Would they conflict with the second amendment? Or the privacy protections implicit on the constitution?
Is the argument that registration may lead to confiscation truly only “paranoia?”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:19 pmrmd says:
My sarcasm detector is in the shop today so I’m not entirely sure what point you’re trying to make here. Taking your statement at face value, yes you certainly do have that right. And if you’ve managed to come anywhere close to fulfilling that particular expression of your 2A rights, I am officially envious.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 1:45 pmCJColucci says:
Joe: Where does Mayor Bloomberg (NY) fit here? He has more importance than a member of the House of Representatives.
At least 435 members of the House of Representatives disagree with you — maybe some other people, as well.
A number of NY Congressmen have run or aspired to run for Mayor of New York City. Not much traffic the other way.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:03 pmTweets that mention The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Another good night for the Second Amendment -- Topsy.com says:
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Walter Olson, Becky Chandler, eapenthampy, Evil Esq Bar Assoc, Jake and others. Jake said: The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Another good night for the ... http://bit.ly/dkwC4 [...]
Soronel Haetir says:
The sad thing about registration, I believe it would easily pass muster under the Art 1 militia clauses. Far easier to perform a call up if you know who is already armed. Much as I would dislike it I have a hard time seeing such requirements as being an infringement of RKBA.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:23 pmSeaDrive says:
I think that some people may not actually realize that, for shooting enthusiasts, owning multiple AR-15s is the same as owning multiple pairs of skis, or multiple sets of golf clubs. All AR-15s are not the same. If one chooses to shoot Service Rifle competition, he needs an AR-15 that is visually similar to a 1970-era M-16. If he wants to shoot National Match competition as well, he will want an AR-15 with more modern features. If he wants to go hunting, he may require a rifle with a different caliber ammunition. And so forth.
Am I to be disallowed to have something just because my neighbor is afraid of it, in the absence of evidence that it will do him actual harm?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 3:24 pmBelow The Beltway » Blog Archive » Election Day 2009 Was A Good Day For The Second Amendment says:
[...] Kopel sums up the results: NY-23: Winning Democrat Bill Owens was A-rated by NRA (as was [...]
Azrael says:
I believe the founding fathers would approve. For those thinking otherwise, consider what gun control has given the world: In Cambodia — one million people from 1975 to 1977, in Uganda — 300000 Christians from 1971 to 1979, in Guatemala — 100000 Mayan Indians from 1964 to 1981, in China — 20 million political dissidents from 1948 to 1952, in Germany — 13 million Jews and others from 1938 to 1945, in Russia — 20 million dissidents from 1929 to 1953, in Turkey — 1500000 Armenians from 1915 to 1917 all of the above murders happened as the murdered were denied their right to own a gun in order to defend themselves. Wouldn’t happen here in the USA, maybe not and that is why our founders made sure that the people had the right to keep and bear arms so that an oppressive government would never be tempted to try, works so far doesn’t it!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:32 pmAzrael says:
Pelosi Lies! She stated that the elections in NJ and VA didn’t matter. However, her boss, POTUS specifically stated on national news coverage, that Corzine’s election was essential to the passage of his health care reform and many other agendas, including the demise of the first and second amendments. But, the law according to Pelosi says otherwise. So in all actuality, who’s on first base in Washington DC? I don’t think tis administration has a clue!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 4:44 pmCarl from Chicago says:
Perhaps you are correct, but there are many other considerations surrounding the idea of simply passing a registration requirement (similar, say, to what they have in Canada).
1) That we are not currently required to muster, or in other words because the militia clauses have not been given any modern effect, would probably detract from such an argument. At the least, it would inform the trajectory of the arguments.
2) It was clear that the Heller court shied away from dealing with the modern relevance of the militia purpose of the second amendment. Therefore, such jurisprudence may have to be developed prior to any registration requirements based on the militia purpose.
3) Such a registration requirement may be seen as absurd to the degree if would affect many sporting-type arms, or antique arms.
4) Registration requirements might be built around the existing NFA, and be relevant to true modern military arms (select-fire shoulder weapons, light automatic firearms, grenades, RPGs, and other militia-useful ordinance).
5) And finally, should a modern militia purpose be developed fully by the courts, that might argue in favor of registration requirements being coupled with armament requirement. And we are talking forced civil service here, opening up another can of worms. Those required to be armed may have to be essentially all people (except exempted classes based on age, physical capability, possibly demonstrable religious beliefs, etc.).
In other words, should the minority who wish to diminish the right to bear arms or their prevalence in society try to effect those wishes through a national registration scheme, they may be opening a larger can of worms than they had bargained for.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:11 pmjack burton says:
It did in New York City. In 1967, New York City passed an ordinance requiring a citizen to obtain a permit to own a rifle or shotgun, which would then be registered. In 1991, the city passed a ban on the private possession of some semi-automatic rifles and shotguns and ‘registered’ owners were told that those firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city.
It did in California. The 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act required registration. Due to changing definitions of “assault weapons”, many legal firearms are now being confiscated by the California government.
Heller recognized the RKBA at the very narrowest margins. As you know.
It says nothing to the idea of registration/confiscation on federal or state levels.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 5:41 pmGordo says:
The reply of a 2nd amendment absolutist. Do you also consider it your “natural right” to own a nuclear weapon?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:42 pmGordo says:
I agree that Heller has not been applied to the states yet, but I would be very surprised if it isn’t in a future Supreme Court decision.
Assuming that it is, then the actions taken by New York would undoubtedly be unconstitutional, and perhaps the actions taken by California.
At that point, I would hope that we could dispense with the paranoia behind anti-registration efforts. Assuming also, that the “2nd amendment absolutist” position isn’t taken and registration isn’t found itself to be unconstitutional, we then get down to the real policy arguments for and against registration.
To which I would argue that registration, and mandatory instruction (similar to the scheme every state uses to issue drivers licenses) would be a strong argument to oppose on policy grounds.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:52 pmDonP. says:
OK, I’m invoking the 2nd amendment equivalent of Godwin’s law here.
“The first person to equate the unregulated proliferation of nuclear weapons (or crew served weapons) to civilians as a consequence of the 2nd amendment loses the argument.”
As my kids might say Gordo — Epic Fail.
... and to add to the list of “Registration leads to confiscation” examples, don’t forget to include Mayor Daley’s very own Chicago Police C.A.G.E. units (Chicago Area Gun Enforcement) that conduct forced confiscations of semi automatic weapons that had lapsed registrations — after he permanently closed the registration.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:53 pmjack burton says:
The fall-back position of a fundamentally un-serious poster. There are no groups agitating for the “right to keep and bear nukes” and there are no groups presenting a “keep nukes out of homes” position.
There is no long history of individuals owning nukes, or fighting for the right to do so. There are no scholarly papers supporting the right... no seasoned politician standing up for the right.
It is a total non-issue... but is the second most common deflection that those on the anti-gun side try to use to get people riled up.
What next? Are you going to ask if we believe in the inherent right to use our firearms to shoot unicorns?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 6:58 pmjack burton says:
A lot of “assumptions” and “maybes” and “shoulds” in that argument for you to be stating so strongly that those who disagree with you are “paranoid.”
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:00 pmjack burton says:
You really want to treat firearms the same as driver’s licenses?
Do I need the governments permission to buy a car? No.
Do I need to buy the car from only certain people with licenses to sell cars? No.
Can I buy as many cars as I want each week/month/year. Yes
Can I buy small cars, big cars, slow cars, fast cars, cars that look dangerous? Yes
Can I buy Hummers virtually like the troops use? Yes.
Do I have to wait from 5 to 15 days to pick up my car. No
If I traded in one car for a newer model do I still have to wait five to ten days to pick the new one up. No
Can I modify my car to allow more fuel, more performance, or better cornering. Yes
Would I have to turn over to the government without compensation some models of automobiles that might be banned years after I buy them. No
Do I need a license to buy a car? No
(in most states)
Can I buy a car at age 16? Yes.
Are driving lessons mandated in most high schools? Yes
Can I buy a car from anyone in any state? Yes.
Can I sell my car to anyone in any state? Yes
Can convicted felons buy, own or drive a car. Yes
In some places (e.g. NYC or New Jersey) would I first need a permit to buy from the police department which sometimes takes up to 2 years to obtain. No
In some cities (e.g. Washington D.C.) would I have to store your car partially disassembled. No
Do I need to register a car that I own? No (as long as I keep it on my own property)
Do I need a background check or waiting period to buy a car? No
Is my car held responsible if I misuse it? No
Would failure to register my car be a federal felony (prevents me from owning another one). No
Do I need to “safe store” my car even though many are stolen and used for criminal purposes? No
Will I lose my driver’s license if I violate the law with my car? Most likely not
Can I legally drive my car into any state/city in the nation with every jurisdiction honoring my registration/license? Yes
Shall I go on? Or do you really, really want to treat guns like cars?
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:04 pmgullyborg says:
You asked:
“Where does Mayor Bloomberg (NY) fit here?”
Here is the answer:
http://www.snowflakesinhell.com/2009/11/04/maig-in-pa-just-lost-16-more-members/
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:14 pmJ Richardson says:
I bet the NRA-ILA feels like idiots for having endorsed Scozzafava — as they well should. Given the others pro-gun leanings, it was a wasted endorsement.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:14 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Funny that folks bring up driver’s licenses and registration as if one has anything to do with the other.
A driver’s license is an operator’s license, it does not require you to give any information about your vehicle or even if you own one.
That said, if you really want to offer an exactly parallel “Firearm’s User License” and it meets Constitutional muster I think you might get some support from pro-2nd Amendment types.
Driver’s License requirements
1) Only required for use of vehicle in public
2) Does not record, reference or require ownership of any particular vehicle by any serial number or description (not a “registration”)
3) Allows use, in legal fashion, of vehicle everywhere open to public driving/parking (i.e. everywhere open to the public in the normal course of business)
4) Full license available at age 16, restricted use available at 14 with supervision
5) No/minimal fee for issuance
6) Liability insurance not required for license issuance
7) Valid for lifetime with no refresher test required
8) Revocable only for documented, non-arbitrary, mental or physical impairment or closely related (to the act of driving in public) criminal act
9) Good in every US state and territory
10) Requires only a free non-comprehensive (short) test of legal knowledge and demonstration of minimal safe usage skills
11) Good for all common vehicle types and transmissions from small cars to 28’ panel trucks (all firearms types and actions; though perhaps full auto would be considered more restrictive, like a commercial operator’s license. Still “shall-issue” though.)
So... a “Driver’s License” for guns would be a shall-issue, nationwide carry permit allowing carry everywhere open to the public in the normal course of business, available at 16, with absolutely no registration of firearms involved.
Write the bill and I’ll back it 100%.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:25 pmMark Turner says:
If I remember correctly, Bloomberg opposed Bob McDonnell and attacked him for his pro-gun positions.
Apparnetly, McDonnell, in his AG job, told Bloomberg to stuff it when he started sending NYPD investigators into Virginia to harrass Virginia dealers.
Bloomberg’s oppsition worked wonders against McDonnell—-NOT!!
Suck on that one Bloomberg!
Quote
November 4, 2009, 7:51 pmmariner says:
J Richardson:
I’ll bet they don’t; nor should they.
The NRA is a single-issue advocacy organization. It rates candidates only on support for the Second Amendment. This is what I want it to do, and what I hope it continues doing.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:19 pmMarkJ says:
What next? Are you going to ask if we believe in the inherent right to use our firearms to shoot unicorns?
I think my state has a three-unicorn limit when they’re in season. They’re delicious–taste like veal. ;)
Quote
November 4, 2009, 8:44 pmSmarty says:
Those of you who support gun control need to explain why states with strict gun control have the highest crime. Perhaps you can explain why gun crime is rising in the UK, along with every category of violent crime.
There is a far greater link to %liberal population and crime than there is of %gun owner.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:30 pmCarl from Chicago says:
Gordo, with all due respect, now you’re just being flat-out foolish.
That might be one of the most over-used and foolish straw-man arguments trotted out by right to arms opponents. That you mentioned it speaks volumes.
Let’s get back to serious discussion.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 9:42 pmMatthew says:
It’s time to fight for open carry in every state int he US. No more permits, no more lists and licenses. Openly carried weapons ALWAYS prevent crime.
Quote
November 4, 2009, 10:58 pmHoodaThunk?: Election night very good for 2nd Amendment defenders says:
[...] Across the board in the statewide elections, defenders of Virginians’ 2nd Amendment rights won their races by commanding margins. It gets better, however, as David Kopel writes over at the Volokh Conspiracy: [...]
3inchbarrel says:
The NRA endorsed Scozzafava before she was trampled by right minded conservatives even though Scozzafava voted several times for anti-gun legislation while in the Assembly. The NRA has no clue on New York State politics and should leave us alone — they only screw things up here — we have things bad enough. The liberals have infiltrated the Republican Party leadership so there effectively is no real Republican Party here. If a candidate loses the republican primary — no problem the Democrats will pick them up! I.e. Garcia. It is time for a RINO hunt!!!
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:17 pmSons of Liberty says:
Re: Driver’s license vs Firearm’s license...
Here’s an idea, to save money, let’s just include a firearm “endorsement” code on the driver’s license. And like others have said, since my driver’s license is good in all 50 states, that endorsment to carry should be as well.
Bring it.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 2:45 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Matthew,
Don’t overreach.
I am unaware of any reputable studies that show a consistent stat. sig. decrease in crime with any loosening of possession and carry rules. By claiming that effect when it cannot be demonstrated in peer-reviewed science you lose credibility for your larger argument. Even Lott doesn’t claim an absolute drop, his unchallenged numbers merely show no change or slight decrease.
Remember, it is a fundamental Right we are talking about. The burden is on those who would restrict it to clearly show that gun control makes things safer, it is not incumbent on us to prove anything. The default for legal behavior is freedom from infringement.
So, rather than claiming an unsupportable drop, simply point out that the three largest studies over the past few decades (CDC and DOJ), as well as every other peer-reviewed reputable study done on gun control, have shown that no law restricting access and carriage by individuals has had any statistically significant positive effect on crime.
Therefore there is no justification, under any level of rational scrutiny, to restrict the RKBA. Gun control just doesn’t work as claimed, the science is damn near settled.
Quote
November 5, 2009, 6:25 pmRick Randall says:
Gordo —
The problem with your childish comparison of support for the enforcement of the Second Amendment to support for personal nuclear weapons is a basic one.
Nukes are NOT “arms” in the 18th century meaning of the word.
Nukes would be considered “ORDNANCE”. 18th Century language DID distinguish between “ARMS” and “ORDNANCE”.
“Arms” are the weapons, tools, and accoutrements of an individual soldier, NOT the heavy weapons that support UNITS. (No, the Founding Fathers didn’t generally ban personal cannon use. . . but the Second Amendment isn’t what protected them.)
Arms would include everything a troop needs to be an individually effective combat soldier EXCEPT food and uniforms or other non-protective clothing items. If he is mustering in a specialist role (dragoons, artillerymen, etc.), it would include the tools peculiar to that role — but not the major items like horses or cannon.
“Ordnance” is large, unit-supporting weapons, like artillery pieces (and by extension, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons). The kind of things that are issued out to “units” for unit support moreso than issued to an individual for his own defense. (Intersetingly enough, a “piece of ordnance” could have it’s OWN “arms” — in the case of artillery, for example, that included the caisson, rammer, sponge, etc. needed to keep the gun functioning as an effective military piece.)
Of course, saying that something doesn’t have a specific 2nd Amendment protection DOES NOT equal that it is equally banned. It just means that those non-2A items can be more heavily regulated than 2A protected items, IF THE PEOPLE SO DESIRE. I don’t see any issues with criminal misuse of 155mm Howitzers. Nor do I see a huge safety issue with a howitzer — I’d be more concerned with controlling the AMMO for one than the GUN. The gun is a big hunk of inert steel not much use for criminal activity. 155 projos and propellant bags (the ammo) is dangerous to my neighbors unless I have proper magazines.
Same for nukes — NOT protected by the Second Amendment. Creates a huge public safety hazard unless tightly controlled. An “oops!” with a nuke (even if it stays subcritical) is a public issue of concern.
On teh other hand — the standard service arms of the American soldier (or equivalent arms)? Speciifcly protected by the Second Amendment, and thus ANY restriction on them needs to meet the “strict scrutiny” standards. For example, “Visitors cannot bring guns into prisons or mental hospitals,” would meet that scrutiny. “Gordo thinks it’s scary,” would not.
Quote
November 6, 2009, 5:10 pmSendarius says:
That’s an interesting thought. As far as I can see it, the militia requirement would be met by the registration of ONE firearm — the one specifically identified as required for militia use.
I can’t see why OTHER firearms would need to be on any register.
Quote
December 2, 2009, 9:51 pmMatthew Carberry says:
It shouldn’t require the “registration” of even one firearm. Militia service says that you will appear for duty appropriately armed, that doesn’t necessarily follow that you have to tell anyone anything about a particular weapon.
Upon becoming liable for militia duty (come of age) you simply affirm that you are in possession of one weapon acceptable for militia use and accept all penalties for responding to a call up without it.
If you prove to have lied (upon call up for training or war) you have committed fraud on the Federal level.
When you register for Selective Service you simply give good contact info and agree to keep them apprised of any changes in status, you don’t have to provide a physical or go through any inspections until such time as you are drafted.
Quote
December 2, 2009, 10:57 pmRick Randall says:
Militia laws traditionally included the requirement that the citizen prove he was adequately armed with a gun that can roughly match military performance (later on, that was tightened to include meaning “armed with a gun that fires USGI standard ammo”), so that any shortages could be handled in advance — not once the militia has actually been mustered for active service.
Fines and such are nice, but a little late when you’ve called up the militia for service restoring public order or repelling invasion, and half of them show up unarmed.
Of course, it was also common to have legislation in place so that the truly indigent were armed at public expense, and the not quite indigent (or cheap, lazy, etc.) were armed at cost or cost-plus. I’ll write a check for my wife’s (since we can’t be sexist ) and my USGI M16, M4, or M14 at US acquisition cost (or even “cost plus”) right now. And those will be our registered militia arms. I’ll cop to being able to put together the web gear for both of us.
Quote
December 3, 2009, 9:30 amMatthew Carberry says:
Point made and taken.
Does “prove” necessarily require registration though or merely reporting with the weapon in hand to a (yearly?) muster inspection with your unit? I believe that was the traditional method as weapons in the US weren’t required to be serialized until, what, the ‘60s?
The only reason I can see to write down the serial number is to prevent people passing around one rifle to get around buying one themselves, which fraud is unlikely to be real common given the logistics of getting it from one person to another in a timely fashion.
If the militia duty is balanced by a purchase benefit like you mention (gov’t cost for basic M4’s is low) it makes choosing fraud even less likely, buy the thing and throw it in the closet.
Quote
December 3, 2009, 4:33 pmRick Randall says:
If someone has a list that says, “Rick R. has a suitable militia gun, so we don;t have to fine him”, I consider THAT registration. Even if it doesn’t mention cailber, model, or serial number.
Registration by model and serial number doesn’t actually yield any more useable data for the government than registration by vague description — because gun registration lists aren’t for tracking down stolen weapons, they are for confiscating guns.
Knowing that I have a militia class rifle is just as good for that purpose as knowing the serial number. The goon squad shows up and collects my “militia rifle” in either case.
What I would ADMANTLY oppose in a true militia accountability system is having to prove I have anything OTHER than a single militia weapon.
Let’s look at teh scenario, OK? Assume a traditional US militia system, uprevved to modern arms, and the government has a list (either by make/model/serial, or even just “Rick has a militia gun”). Now assume a confiscatory and nefarious government that sends out the goon squads to disarm people, based on the militia lists. (Further assume that I choose not to just start killing goons right there, for whatever reason. . .)
Goon squad shows up, asks for my “militia rifle”. I decide not to luanch a suicide jihad right there and then and I hand over a militia rifle. Maybe even the “one basic load of ammo, bayonet, and web gear”, if the militia law required me to prove that as well (as the early laws did) and the goon squad was collecting that support gear as well.
The other rifles I have stashed away (1, a dozen, a whole freaking truck load? God — and my wife — only knows) and ammo (cans, cases, or pallets?) would still not be listed — and would be just as safe from confiscation as if NO registration list for ANYTHING existed.
The fact that I have a registered militia rifle wouldn’t indicate I have more guns — since be its very nature, a militia accountability system like that assumes EVERYONE has a militia rifle!
How does the goon squad having the serial number of the ONE GUN I am required by law to prove I own change ANYTHING in the confiscation scenario? Or ANY confiscation scenarios? It doesn’t.
On teh other hand, such a list IS useful for keeping people from cheating on their militia duties by passing the same rifle around so that a dozen adults can claim to be armed — all with the same rifle. (I can easily see hoplophobes doing “time share” rifles to avoid having to pony up and keep the Evil Nasty Killing Machine in their own house.)
Quote
December 3, 2009, 4:49 pmMatthew Carberry says:
Dammit, point made and taken again. =)
Quote
December 4, 2009, 5:50 pmRick Randall says:
I’m an absolutist on the Constitution. In BOTH directions. (grin)
I’m still waiting to hear a logically valid argument as to why conscription isn’t a violation of the 13th Amendment. Unless, of course, you are only conscripting convicts as part of their sentance. After all, it has an exception for involuntary service as part of a criminal sentance — but I see not ONE exception that allows involuntary service for national defense.
To me, this is a case of the original meaning of the phrase, “the exception that proves the rule.”
(Still wouldn’t invalidate the militia — only the involuntary callup of the militia. And that could be gotten around by getting people to volunteer to be on teh callup list, in exchange for some priviledge. Student loans, welfare, government jobs — ALL could be restricted to “registered militia members” if a militia based involuntary callup system were desired. Any one else in the militia would be subject only to VOLUNTARY callup.)
Quote
December 7, 2009, 9:57 amWhat’s that Smell? « Conservative Libertarian Outpost says:
[...] David Kopel The Volokh Conspiracy November 4, 2009 http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/another-good-night-for-the-second-amendment/ [...]
Dave Kopel’s Second Amendment Newsletter | The American Jingoist says:
[...] David Kopel The Volokh Conspiracy November 4, 2009 http://volokh.com/2009/11/04/another-good-night-for-the-second-amendment/ [...]