Let's make it a crime to possess them, and enforce it this way:
Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All drugs would be seized. The owners of drugs found in the searches would be prosecuted.
Fairly quickly there would begin to be drug-swept, drug-free areas where there should be no drugs. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for possessing.
America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-drug dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, to funnel drugs into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time.
Not persuaded? Think this might be a Fourth Amendment violation, maybe? Even if you approve of the criminalization of drugs, do you think this might be taking things too far?
Oh, wait, I got the noun wrong — this is actually a proposal, written by Dan Simpson, an editorial board member at the Toledo Blade and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:
[H]ow would one disarm the American population? First of all, federal or state laws would need to make it a crime punishable by a $1,000 fine and one year in prison per weapon to possess a firearm. The population would then be given three months to turn in their guns, without penalty.
Hunters would be able to deposit their hunting weapons in a centrally located arsenal, heavily guarded, from which they would be able to withdraw them each hunting season upon presentation of a valid hunting license. The weapons would be required to be redeposited at the end of the season on pain of arrest. [Details omitted. -EV]
The disarmament process would begin after the initial three-month amnesty. Special squads of police would be formed and trained to carry out the work. Then, on a random basis to permit no advance warning, city blocks and stretches of suburban and rural areas would be cordoned off and searches carried out in every business, dwelling, and empty building. All firearms would be seized. The owners of weapons found in the searches would be prosecuted: $1,000 and one year in prison for each firearm.
Clearly, since such sweeps could not take place all across the country at the same time. But fairly quickly there would begin to be gun-swept, gun-free areas where there should be no firearms. If there were, those carrying them would be subject to quick confiscation and prosecution. On the streets it would be a question of stop-and-search of anyone, even grandma with her walker, with the same penalties for "carrying." ...
America's long land and sea borders present another kind of problem. It is easy to imagine mega-gun dealerships installing themselves in Mexico, and perhaps in more remote parts of the Canadian border area, to funnel guns into the United States. That would constitute a problem for American immigration authorities and the U.S. Coast Guard, but not an insurmountable one over time....
Well, then, that's sure to work!
Of course, I realize the guns-drugs analogy isn't complete. Drug addicts aren't quite the same as criminals who want guns for their crimes; gun and drug detection problems are different; drugs aren't used for self-defense; neither the federal nor state Constitutions mention a right to have drugs; we can add to the list. But it does seem to me that a War on Guns, with unannounced random searches on streets and in homes, should be highly unappealing to anyone who has even some reservations about the War on Drugs, and questionable even to those who support the War on Drugs.
Oh, and don't forget: No-one is trying to take away your guns; people's concerns about that are just a "gun lobby ... bogeyman."
Seeking out fish with a high-powered boat and sonar gear seems like a no-contest affair, too. So how come I don't catch more fish?
Of course, as with fishing, the actual "contest" is not in the killing, it's in the hunting. That's why it's called "hunting," and not "slaughter." It's also why sport fishing with gill nets wouldn't be any fun.
Also, I love the reference to "high-powered" weapons. Would it be more acceptable to hunt with black powder?
Anyway, this is a nut job proposal, and it's clear that there are people out there advocating gun bans. However, it is also useful to remember that not everyone who advocates for gun regulation is secretly trying to advocate a gun ban, even if some folks have adopted this ploy.
I don't think there's anybody who thinks that Simpson's proposal is: (a) Workable; (b) Legal; or (c) A good idea. I suspect even Simpson would suggest that there are big holes in his plan. And even if he's dead serious, he's a newspaper columnist, not a mayor, governor, or president. He's allowed to think that dumb things might be legal.
Don't forget: Nobody is trying to take away your guns. Some people think it might be a good idea to regulate them, and the gun lobby wants to demonize those people.
K
This is not true. There are certainly people who favor greater regulation of firearms but do not want to take them away, but I have encountered plenty of people who do not see why anyone other than a soldier or police officer would have a valid reason to own a gun.
This bio has him listed as a former U.S. ambassador to the Congo, Central African Republic, and Somalia. Draw your own conclusions.
Except the editor who agreed to publish this dreck.
Honestly, has this fascist nitwit even read the Constitution?
If he's serious, then he's a few fries short of a happy meal.
But wait... that would be immoral and impractical.
Except the person who wrote the article quoted above. Do you have a reading comprehension problem? He's not the only one. Someone that used to misrepresent me in Congress, Lynne Woolsey (D-CA) told me before the 1992 election that if she had her way, all private ownership of guns in the U.S. would be banned.
Or he's planning to run for Congress in a liberal area. My idiot misrepresentative when I lived in California wanted to completely ban private ownership of guns. She may be the least intelligent member of Congress; she is also sometimes referred to as Representative-for-Life by the very liberal Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, because they know that she is undefeatable in a district filled with thousands of millionaires.
The United States creates a federal monopoly on the distribution of controlled substances at the wholesale and retail level, and becomes the only buyer for this market.
Prices are fixed by the government. Any one who wishes to be a user may do so, but will have to obtain a license to do so and thus register with an authority.
Any person possessing drugs, who is not so registered, will be confined in one or more "colonies" established to hold offenders, where they will reside and work at assigned tasks.
various penalties for re-sales, sharing with the unregistered, etc.
Keep the prices down (as the monopsonist). Take the $$$ out of the game. Severe incarceration for anyone importing other than to the feds, who will buy abroad.
Much more complex, of course and administration will have to be privatized, with many ultimate "scandals."
I ahve often wondered why we (perhaps together with NATO, some UN, etc.) don't just buy the whole Afghan crop anyway rather than spew money out to erradicate &replace.
Anti-Americanism? Totally Bush's fault.
Jimmy Carter's controversial book? Awesome!
Ridiculous news? We need it to entertain ourselves in the wasteland of Bush's America.
Just some of the many things you can learn by parusing his archive here :
http://www.post-gazette.com/search/archive.asp?cCat=374
I'd say his a first-class moonbat.
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07080/771085-374.stm
In this column he compares present-day America to East Germany and all but flat-out equates the NSA and FBI to the Stasi.
If not, my feelings can be adequately summarized as follows: God save us from anyone who wants to give the government "specially trained police squads" that perform random sweeps.
Nick
Danger of wrongful act = Desire + Capability
Professor Volokh ignores capabilty. This is analogous to someone who says that the Ku Klux Klan is one of the biggest threats the US currently faces, because they desire to kill so many blacks, Jews, and Catholics. Sure, they have hateful desires, but do they have any capability to carry those desires out?
When someone says "no-one is going to take away your guns", what that person means is NOT that nobody wants to, but there isn't anyone who both wants to and would have the capability of doing it. Indeed, reading Simpson's piece shows how improbable this all is-- the government would have to assert all sorts of extraordinary powers that the government never would assert and which would never hold up in court before the gun seizures could happen.
There is a perfectly respectable case to be made for Second Amendment rights. Raising the spectre of gun confiscation as a serious possibility may raise money for the NRA, but it is at best very irresponsible, as it prevents even very reasonable gun regulations (such as putting tracing materials in ammunition so that we can solve more gun crimes) from being enacted because gun owners are so fearful that they will give the government the tools necessary to effectuate the planned confiscation.
On a serious note, this proposal is so blatantly unconstitutional I'm surprised there's no mention of the Constitution anywhere in the piece. If anything, he seems to concede constitutional problems and advocates speeding up implementation before the court challenges occur. I wonder if he'd advocate a similar approach to the First Amendment?
I think the drug analogy and the illegal immigration analogy work pretty well in this context, and I appreciate Eugene's thoughtful post on this topic.
I thought that was Barbara Boxer.
Something more benign could be added instead. Non-radioactive isotopes at levels different than found in nature, sodium 23, deuterium and the like would be added to confiscated drugs, and allowed to return to the drug supply line. Then all we have to do is have people walk through NMR detectors and find those with incriminating levels of the tracer material. Bingo, got em.
No, I would say Dianne Feinstein. Has anyone heard her questions during a confirmation hearing for any judicial nominee? Just horrible.
Dan Simpson retired from the U.S. Foreign Service after 35 years of assignments to countries in Africa, the Middle East and Europe, including as U.S. ambassador to the Central African Republic, ambassador and special envoy to Somalia, and ambasssador to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
This is repugnant, regardless of whether the police are looking for guns, drugs, nuclear weapons, or any other kind of contraband.
Sen. Feinstein has said something very similar.
he may be the least intelligent member of Congress;
I thought that was Barbara Boxer.
</blockquote>
You haven't met <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.seds.org/spaceviews/970915/cap.html"> Sheila Jackson Lee </a>.
<blockquote>
The Congressional bonehead award goes to Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) who, on a visit to JPL, asked if Mars Pathfinder had taken an image of the flag planted there in 1969 by Neil Armstrong! Quipped Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) to the Washington Times: "We just don't teach enough science." Worse, Jackson Lee, who represents Houston, is a member of the House Science Committee's space subcommittee.
</blockquote>
Lee is also the one who made hurricane <b>names</b> into a civil rights issue (quotation is from <i>The Hill</i>, via <i>National Review</i>):
<blockquote>
The 2003 hurricane season is here, and that means a whole new list of names such as Larry, Sam and Wanda ready to make tropical-storm history. Although Spanish and French names are included in this year's lineup, among them Juan and Claudette, which struck Texas last week, popular African American names, like Keisha, Jamal and Deshawn, are nowhere to be found. Some black lawmakers don't seem to mind, but Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) does. "All racial groups should be represented," said Lee. Hurricane names have been too lily white for Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas). She says all ethnic groups should be represented. The World Meteorological Organization began naming tropical storms after women in 1953. That made sense to scientists at the time who thought women and storms were both unpredictable. After feminist groups protested, men's names were added in 1979. The National Weather Service says hurricane names are derived from languages spoken in areas that border the Atlantic Ocean, where such storms occur. Yet that doesn't explain why Gaston, Ernesto and Cindy were chosen and Antwon, Destiny and Latonya were passed over. Lee said she hoped in the future the weather establishment 'would try to be inclusive of African American names.' That could take a while. The current roster of hurricane names isn't due to be updated until 2007.
</blockquote>
Of course, CA State Senator Jenny Oropeza (famous for saying during debate on a bill "The hatred and bigotry in this room is palatable.") may be joining Lee in Congress later this year. Oropeza is widely regarded as the dimmest bulb in the CA legislature, and is a frontrunner for an open seat.
Nick
Well, at least he doesn't blame the "gun problem" on the Israel lobby -- or does he? I haven't read his archive, but maybe he thinks the nefarious "gun lobby" (read "citizens") is controlled by the notorious "Zionist lobby" (read you know who).
Maybe it's because I live in a Midwestern blue state. Even though there's no hunting in Chicago, there are still plenty of people who hunt and fish up in the Wisco or Michigan. That, and I'm a lawyer and his proposal is absurdly unconstitutional on multiple grounds.
Guns are fine with me. Guns in the hands of the wrong people are not cool, hence I support reasonable gun control. But I'll be damned if they are ever allowed to take away guns from the responsible, law-abiding citizens. Hell, my old roommate is an avowed socialist and even he had that same opinion. Like I said, must be the upper Midwest.
A Swiftian modest proposal means proposing something you don't really want to do. It does *not* mean proposing something that you do want to do but in a slightly less extreme fashion. Saying that you think we need a police state to take away guns when you merely want the police to take away guns using their current powers isn't a Modest Proposal.
Funny, gun confiscations have happened in places like New York and California. Many groups have seriously proposed such a thing. It seems to me that it's not irresponsible to suggest that if gun owners are sufficiently weakened that gun confiscation would soon follow. The only reason that these groups lack the capability is because of the power of gun owners as a political force. Weaken that, and they can accomplish a lot more.
We also have a problem with what people think is reasonable, because it's often proposed by people who don't know the first thing about firearms, and don't shoot. How exactly do you put tracing materials in ammunition? How is this going to affect the price? How is it going to solve crime? How do you keep track of who buys what? How do you prevent someone from spoiling the system? These aren't minor technical questions. They represent fundamental problem with the idea of ballistic fingerprinting. We oppose these measures because they are not reasonable. States that have passed ballistic fingerprinting regulations have not found them very useful for the purposes of solving crimes. So what is their purpose? The only thing I can figure is to drive up ammo prices, and create additional burdens on citizens, so fewer of them choose to exercise their rights. All the better for the people who do want to ban guns.
Right now, any rational person can see that it would take a police state with door to door searches to scoop up every gun in private hands, and even liberals would draw the line at something that absurd. (Leftists wouldn't; it would be a chance for the government to kill a lot of people.)
But if gun registration becomes mandatory, then ten or twenty years later, it doesn't sound so absurd to claim, "Well, there aren't a lot of unregistered guns. We can go scoop up all the guns from registered owners, and Eden will again exist." It would be utterly wrong, but the idiots that get their primary information from television news would nod and say, "I guess that will work."
He'd have a clean sweep, first, second, third and fourth amendments, all at once! Order them to question arrestees w/o Mirandizing them or allowing access to an attorney, and you could get 1-6. The Seventh Amendment is gonna be hard to get to, tho.
Oh, you mean like wanting to lock up US citizens for criticizing elected officials within too short a time before an election? Okay, I feel safer now. Oh wait a minute, Congress already passed that law and the Supreme Court upheld it. And it has already been extended beyond its face to prosecute radio talk show hosts for opposing a mayor's pet project, even though what they did was facially permitted under the law. Yeah, I feel a lot better now, especially knowing that they were acquitted on appeal.
Are you aware that the spectre has already occurred several years ago in California, where people who registered their
scary looking semi-autos"assualt weapons" in good faith during an adminstrative extension to the registration period were threatened with prosecution or confiscation after a gun ban advocate successfully sued to invalidate the extension for being beyond the power of the state attorney general? Not to mention the confiscations that followed registration in the UK, Australia and elsewhere.Yeah, that'll work. And with no effect on safety or reliability either.
No, some ideas are opposed because they can lead to confiscation. Others are opposed because they infringe unnecessarily on liberty and safety. (E.g. blanket bans on concealed carry.) Still others because they will impose economic burdens on manufacturers, consumers and government with no corresponding commensurate with the cost. (E.g. Maryland's bullet/rifling registry.) And still others are opposed because they are just plain stupid and unworkable.
Professor Volokh has provided quotes from the dominant voices in the media and government who have requested such complete bans before. I can name you at one member of Congress so stupid as to openly admit that she wants complete confiscation of guns. I'm sure that she is outnumbered 10 or 20 to 1 by members of Congress who share her feelings but who have more than cooked pasta between their ears.
Not quite a good analogy. You have to take the gun control movement, and the groups that support it, as look at things they've proposed and things they've said. There is a very well financed movement out there who's ultimate goal is to ban most, if not all, firearms. That's not paranoia. Look how hard the Brady Campaign is fighting to uphold the DC ban? They condemned the ruling that threw it out. Many other groups defend it as well.
There is no serious movement for banning peanut butter. Maybe you could find some kook who supported it. If it was just one kook saying he wanted to ban guns, I wouldn't worry about it. But several well financed groups out there, who have historically attempted to ban firearms, and have had success in several parts of the United States, isn't a dismissable threat for gun owners.
Kevin - one of the people calling for an outright ban on handguns (and quoted on the site EV linked to) was a State Attorney General. He had the unilateral power to make things very difficult for people trying to own a handgun.
Nick
Sebastian, you just don't understand. The very fact that the dreaded GUN LOBBY (cue scary music) opposes something means it must be a good idea. The very fact that the GUN LOBBY is for something -- read Eddy Eagle, or Project Exile -- means it must be a terrible idea. That is all we know on earth, and all we need to know.
Except the ACLU has no interest in the 2nd Ammendment.
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on Semi-automatic handguns, which automatically re-load every time the trigger is pulled?
support oppose
4/22/07 55% 41%
"Would you support or oppose a law requiring a nationwide ban on the sale of handguns, except to law enforcement officers?
support oppose
4/22/07 38% 60%
5/xx/00 38% 59%
9/xx/99 32% 65%
Evidently at least a third of Americans want handguns absolutely banned and a majority want semi-automatics banned. With this level of support gun owners should take the notion of a complete ban seriously. While Simpson is a wacko, he does speak for a sizable number of people. Unfortunately these people are concentrated in the media, Hollywood, academia, government and in the legal community. All places where they can exert influence far beyond their actual numbers. With series of sensational, well-publicized gun massacres, it will become irresistible for legislators to enact New York and DC style bans on handgun possessions. You have to understand these elites simply don’t care if criminals have access to guns. It’s the white middle class they want to disarm. Gun advocates ignore this fact of life at their peril.
No doubt. That also says, to me, that a sizable percentage of the population doesn't understand what a semi-automatic pistol means, even if you make a statement that attempts to explain it. This lack of knowledge among the public is something that the anti-gun groups love to exploit. For all practical purposes, there's no real difference in function between a semi-automatic pistol and a revolver. Each has its own advantages and disadvantages, but they each fire a single shot with each pull of the trigger. I'd be willing to make a bet, given how that question was framed. A sizable number of those polled thought the question was referring to a machine pistol.
Thanks for bringing up Queen Sheila. Unfortunately, she's my representative. I can't wait for the first hurricane "LaRhonda".
Try this.
"Special squads of police, members of Einsatzgruppen also known as Kapos, would be formed and trained to carry out the work."
Jawohl, Herr Obersturmbannführer!
You are absolutely correct. I know otherwise sane and intelligent people whose minds shut down completely when it comes to guns. They think exactly that. When you tell them that since the 1930s you need a special license to own a machine gun, you get a blank look of disbelief. They just think you’re making it up. Unfortunately people are not going to get accurate information from any MSM source. The only thing worse is talking about race. You can’t even bring the subject up. I know of young lawyers who won’t even discuss the subject of race over the telephone. They are afraid the government is listening in and the conservation will come back to haunt them.
Each time I want to buy any gun, I have to go through a waiting period and a background check. No instant check in California, no matter how many guns you already own. Unless you're a cop.
I am allowed the "privilege" of buying one handgun a month. Unless I'm a cop.
I own several semi-auto rifles that are very accurate and are functionally identical to some other semi-auto rifles you can still buy. I had to submit to an additional background check and be fingerprinted to be allowed the privilege of keeping them. I can't pass them on to my sons when the time is right. I can't buy more of them. Unless I'm a cop.
I can't buy magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Unless I'm a cop.
Due to the hysteria that surrounds guns, I can't drive to my child's school without giving up my fourth amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches. Unless I'm a cop.
What's left? The only new gun control law I'm willing to even consider is to remove all the exemptions for cops. If guns are bad, they are bad, no matter who you are. If guns aren't bad, what the Hell are we doing?
P.S. As to (paraphrasing) "Don't be silly, we don't want to ban them all!" As others have said, enough people with some authority do want to take my guns away from me. That being the case, I don't think there are any reasonable gun control laws.
I would be especially interested in the results from poor, black neighborhoods: the people-group most impacted by gun violence. I propose that even most gun victims would not want to disarm themselves and give the police all the power.
The gun lobby should stop using the confusing term 'semi-automatic' and start using a term similar to 'police-like'.
Handguns are designed to kill- mostly to kill people. But the American way requires that an everyday police tool be also available to any law-abiding civilian. Hippies may not like it, but that's the way it is.
I wouldn't agree with that. Police like can sort of imply only useful or proper for police. I prefer the term "self-loading".
This chowderhead editorial is going to have a similar life, and with more reason.
Really, you folks have victimhood complex so large it would fill several armories.
In the real world, yes, nobody's going to take your guns away. At MOST, you aren't going to be able to possess them in a few big cities (and even then, nobody will confiscate them as long as they remain out of sight).
The real bite of the confiscation argument is that we can't get anywhere on gun registration and licensing, tracing, and other reasonable regulations (which are entirely consistent with the individual right protected by the Second Amendment, by the way) because a whole industry exists to delude gun owners into thinking the black helicopters are landing next week. It would be amusing if it weren't so cynical.
Do you and the rest of the anti-gun people have ten second memories? Have you forgotten about a little thing called prohibition? The government, with the consent of the American voters, decided that we were too stupid to use something and it had to be taken away. Not guns, but BOOZE.
I say we're damn smart to be paranoid about this, since the government already has a history of doing things "for our own good." See also: The Drug War.
this is going to override the lobbying power of the NRA and millions of hunters and others who own guns??????????????
More people drink than don't, yet prohibition passed.
Because 1/3 of the public supports a ban on the SALE of handguns, this means that CONFISCATION is going to happen?
Okay, so you ban the SALE of pistols, similar to how prohibition was originally supposed to work. Yet, surprise surprise, violent crime fails to go down, just like in the UK! Clearly, people aren't to be trusted with the weapons they already have, we'll have to do something about that....
Talk to Mayor Daley. His CAGE units are knocking on law-abiding citizens doors shortly after they forget to re-register their firearms or renew their FOID (firearm owner's ID)
CAGE was created with the promises that this would not happen.
What is the point of these reasonable regulations? They serve no useful purpose at all. If they are not intended to lead to gun confiscation, why are they proposed?
I bet his ambassadorships were under Jimmy Carter.
What is funny is you confirm the point of the post.
And don't even know it.
And because you raise strawmen about a few "hollywood types" (who are the rich people who could pay punitive taxes and who get "may issue" carry permits now in CA, when the average law-abiding citizen cannot), suddenly there's nothing to fear?
No matter how many Senators (more than one, sorry) call for "restrictions", which are always "reasonable", and never "just a step", anyone who thinks otherwise is clinically paranoid?
(I assure you that registration and licensing are not reasonable any more than they are for the First Amendment, since they lead to out and out bans or confiscation.
This is neither paranoia nor assumption - it has been shown to happen. You yourself admit that bans happen, remember?
Tracing? Not reasonable if only because it cannot be workable, especially without being de-facto registration.
Cynical? I can't decide if you're the cynic, or simply utterly ignorant.)
Hilarious.
Because you say so, right?
I bolded the contradictory parts for you since you have an obvious problem with basic logic.
I love when people like you use caps. It makes what you're saying "fact" and stuff.
It does seem unlikely that at the federal level there will be massive gun bans any time soon (though unlikely things have happened). It does not seem unlikely that this would happen at the state or city level. D.C. still has a near-total ban on possessing any handguns, and possessing rifles and shotguns in a ready-for-self-defense state. (The D.C. Circuit's mandate has not yet issued.) Chicago and environs mostly bans handguns. My guess is that without the dreaded "gun lobby," a significant number of cities and states would indeed try to take away people's guns (though I hope would not try house-to-house searches for them, at least just yet), and not just stop at registration / safety tests / licensing / etc. And, as I mentioned, many in the "gun lobby," even those who live in Colorado or Tennessee, actually care about what they see as the basic human rights of people who live in San Francisco, Chicago, Washington, D.C., New York, or Boston.
1. It protects an individual right. The gun control advocates who say it doesn't are misreading the text.
2. UNLIKE the First Amendment, which has absolutist wording, the Second Amendment contextualizes the right as to serve a well regulated militia, and thus expressly contemplates regulation.
3. Even under the First Amendment, many time, place, and manner regulations are constitutional, as well as regulations that are necessary to serve compelling interests and regulations of unprotected speech. The idea that the Second Amendment is absolute when no other provision of the Bill of Rights is absolute is hogwash.
4. Registration and licensing is Constitutional because the government has the right to know who is in the militia, and what guns they have, so that the unorganized militia can be called up. If you look at the history of the Second Amendment, no framer would have thought otherwise. The fact that the NRA fears confiscation (a contemporary fear that the framers didn't have) is completely irrelevant to the meaning of the Second Amendment-- the NRA didn't draft it and has no say as to what it means.
5. Other regulations are also constitutional, as long as they are reasonable and related to the purpose of regulating the militia.
6. Complete bans on possession, ownership, or transport are unconstitutional.
Bottom line: the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but it doesn't enact the NRA wish list.
You need to look up what "well-regulated" meant back around 1780.
"My guess is that without the dreaded 'gun lobby,' a significant number of cities and states would indeed try to take away people's guns (though I hope would not try house-to-house searches for them, at least just yet)...."
That's a half-concession, but why the "at least just yet"? Do you REALLY believe that ANY city is going to have "house to house" searches for guns? Do you REALLY believe that the courts would approve this?
This is what I was talking about. You are a law professor, a brilliant one, and indeed, someone who knows quite a lot more about the Constitution than I do. So how can you possibly imply that any city is going to do house to house searches for guns? Has any American city ever done this in the past? Is there a Fourth Amendment doctrine that would permit it?
Really, there's just something about this issue that brings out the paranoia in otherwise sensible people. Suddenly the government's going to become malevolent and take away all our guns! It's just not credible, and as I said, it has real costs, because it means that many proposed gun regulations, no matter how reasonable, get held up because of the fear that they will lead to confiscation.
I know what the NRA claims it meant, but I don't buy it. First, FYI, the term "regulated" comes from the Latin "regula", which means "rule". In other words, the standard meaning of "regulated" was EXACTLY the same in the 18th century as it now, i.e., subjected to rules.
Second, even if the NRA theory is right about what "regulated" meant, it ignores the fact that the term modifies "militia". A "militia" is a group of persons subject to organization, command, and control for the defense of the state. In other words, even if the words "well regulated" WERE NOT in the Second Amendment, the concept of state control over the membership of the militia is IMPLICIT in the concept of a militia. Obviously the state can call the militia up, require drills, give it orders, assign it weapons, discipline it, etc. The idea that the government had no power to catalogue the membership of the militia in 1791 (the equivalent of a modern gun registration or licensing scheme) is completely ahistorical.
Look, the NRA had to come up with SOME makeweight, BS construction to get around the plain text of the Second Amendment which creates a right but contemplates regulation. So they came up with something. But it is pretty clearly bunk, designed to allow the NRA to maintain its position that not only are gun bans unconstitutional (something I agree with the NRA on) but that every regulation the NRA doesn't like for one reason or another is also unconstitutional.
It does no such thing.
Try again.
To say you are misguided and uninformed is a dramatic understatement.
The idea that the government had no power to catalogue the membership of the militia in 1791 (the equivalent of a modern gun registration or licensing scheme)
I actually feel sorry for you.
Uh, you have a right to both a) own a gun and b) not be in the militia.
That is true now, and it was true when the 2nd Amendment was written.
You are simply delusional.
So?
Which liberal politician or gun banning group has that stopped?
Do you really believe it would stop a liberal judge?
Using this "logic" the government can "catologue" anyone for any reason.
Then regulate their behavior.
Something you pretend to be against but spend an awful lot of time arguing for.
Are you familiar with this issue at all? I mean really. What happened in Chicago was already pointed out to you above. Did you just ignore it because the facts don't fit your agenda or what?
New Orleans - right after Katrina.
Yes.
At the orders of New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, the New Orleans Police, the National Guard, the Oklahoma National Guard, and U.S. Marshals have begun breaking into homes at gunpoint, confiscating their lawfully-owned firearms, and evicting the residents. "No one is allowed to be armed. We're going to take all the guns," says P. Edwin Compass III, the superintendent of police.
You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you. Plenty of politicians in this country advocate gun confiscation, and there are regions of the country where guns actually have been banned and confiscated. So where's the senseless paranoia?
Out of curiousity, what's so absolutist about the First Amendment? "Freedom of speech, or of the press" doesn't define either one, which would seem to allow for the 'reasonable' regulation of activities which might or might not be either one depending on statutory definition.
Yes:
Those facts are pesky, aren't they?
As someone else said, are you familiar with this issue at all? Look up the battle at Lexington and Concord. You know, the incident that precipitated the American Revolutionary War?
Re: absolutist - 1st Ammendment " ...Congress shall make no law..." 2nd ' "..shall not be infringed..."
Sounds pretty similar to me.
You could really benefit from reading Eugene's slippery slope law review article.
You seem very young; I'm sure you'll get there eventually!
What's more deserving of the label "paranioa"? A fear of confiscation, based on historical precedents, or anti-gun folks' idea that anyone who owns or wishes to own a firearm is a homicidal nut-case?
Double checks--no, Inhofe, Coburn, Musgrave, Bachmann, Sali, Rohrabacher, Barton, to name a few, are still in congress and ahead of her in line.
As for the Ace and others who dispute my interpretation of the Second Amendment: the Second Amendment DOES NOT protect the right to keep and bear arms divorced from membership in a militia. The text is ABSOLUTELY, 100 PERCENT, COMPLETELY unambiguous about that.
The usual response is that the unorganized militia contains all able-bodied adults-- which is true (subject to a 14th Amendment issue that I do not think is germane here). But by making the point that the unorganized militia contains all able-bodied adults, the NRA and its defenders are conceding that in fact, the right to keep and bear arms flows from membership in the militia, as the Second Amendment provides.
But even we assume that there is a Constitutional right, perhaps as a nontextual matter of substantive due process, to own a gun despite not being a member of the militia, that doesn't really get you where you want to go. Because, it would make no sense that the government has all that power to regulate the right of militia members to keep and bear arms but you could just quit the militia and escape all those regulations. Indeed, the framers certainly thought the states had the power to define who was in the militia (most states did so at the time the Second Amendment was adopted), and if the state says you are in the militia, I doubt you can actually escape that determination by your own unilateral declaration.
Finally, no the government cannot require "registration" of anything-- for instance, a requirement that you register a newspaper is plainly unconstitutional. But that's because of the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment. In contrast, the Second Amendment protects gun ownership but only in the context of a well-regulated militia. They are two different provisions, and keeping track of who the gun owners are is plainly contemplated by the text of the Second Amendment, whereas keeping track of newspapers is plainly prohibited by the text of the First.
Finally, to all who raise the Chicago incident, I see NOTHING in there about house-to-house searches for guns. Rather, it appears that they had probable cause. If they did not, it is clearly subject to a Fourth Amendment challenge. As for New Orleans, that wasn't a gun confiscation order, that was an eviction order. I am still waiting for the evidence that there is ANY possibility of actual suspicionless "house to house searches" for guns in the United States.
You are certainly correct that some on the gun control side are irrational and paranoid about guns. I don't mean to suggest otherwise, and I'd like to see more courts adopt the DC Circuit's reasoning and strike down gun bans that are based on that irrational paranoia.
But it seems to me that this is more of an exaggerated fear-- guns CAN kill you, it's just you aren't LIKELY to be killed by one-- whereas the fear of mass, house-to-house gun confiscation is a complete delusion.
Mind you, from the author of:
I'd like to see more courts adopt the DC Circuit's reasoning
You obviously aren't too clear on what that reasoning was.
Look, you're not that informed on this issue, so I'm not going to waste much more time on you other than to say this. Yes, the state has the right "regulate" (you're changing the meaning of this word like 5 times in your rambling and incoherent diatribes) "the militia." That is something different than regulating firearms.
You can stamp your feet and pretend otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.
in contrast, the Second Amendment protects gun ownership but only in the context of a well-regulated militia
No it doesn't.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Even the DC Circuit, which you praised, doesn't agree with you.
Too bad it's been pointed out to you 5 times now it has happened, and not only in America.
Indeed, the framers certainly thought the states had the power to define who was in the militia (
Which again, has little to do with owning a gun. In other words, you're making a completely meaningless statement in repetiton to make an absurd claim of state power.
Right. Like being in a gun registry.
I'm sorry, but you're either dumb or willfully obtuse.
As for New Orleans, that wasn't a gun confiscation order, that was an eviction order
Now you're just flat out lying.
No one will be able to be armed," said Deputy Chief Warren Riley. "We are going to take all the weapons."
Some "evacuation" order, huh?
Hey, if the police came to your home saying they were looking for kiddie porn in your neighborhood and arbitrarily took your firearms, you'd say it was a "kiddie porn" order, right?
You leftists are so intellectually dishonest it is embarrassing.
I know Cassell's has been indoctrinating students with right-wing propaganda since 1963, but here's the exact entry for "regula, -ae":
f. a ruler, a plank. Transf., a rule, pattern, model.
Now flip to the entry for "rule, subst.":
= ruler, regula, decempeda; = regulation, lex, praeceptum; = government, imperium, regnum.
administratio; = an order, iussum, praeceptum, lex.
Look, those of us from the Other Washington have to put up with having her as one of our Senators; don't you think you can spare us a little honorable mention on her behalf at times like this???
Actually they are dissimilar in one important respect...The First protects against Congress only, the Second protects against all.
Seemingly, an executive order could contavene the First Amendment. I wonder if, through its incorporation via the 14th amendment, the term "Congress" now includes state legislatures.
This bio has him listed as a former U.S. ambassador to the Congo, Central African Republic, and Somalia. Draw your own conclusions.
Campaign contributions of about $4,000 to whoever won? $20,000 would have at least gotten Equador. Or maybe a contribution to the *wrong* party? Maybe the winner figured that between malaria, sleeping sickness, and terrorists, they could consider him expendable?
1. The DC Circuit reasoned that it protected an individual right. It did not hold that the militia clause is meaningless, as you seem to think.
2. In the context of the Second Amendment, the well regulated militia is CLEARLY connected to the scope of the right to bear arms. That's the subject matter of the Amendment.
3. Nobody has pointed out mass, house to house searches. So far we have some comments about what people would LIKE to do but don't have the power to do, an enforcement of an assault weapons ban, which didn't occur house-to-house, probable cause searches in Chicago, and a military evacuation order (since outlawed by Congress) in New Orleans which was broader than guns and went to presence in the evacuated zone. None of these things are evidence that house-to-house searches (which has a very specific meaning, i.e., searching EVERY house without cause or suspicion) have happened. The problem is, if one is paranoid, I guess you see house-to-house searches where they didn't happen.
4. In Chicago, I direct readers to an actual link to the story: http://www.kc3.com/news/chicago_confiscation.htm
It seems that ONE person who had an EXPIRED registration (and thus the police had probable cause to search) had his gun taken in a CONSENT search.
Where's the evidence of ANY "house to house" searches?
5. In New Orleans, go back and read the source material: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial
/09storm.html?ex=1177905600&en=5146dc87cc9b114a&ei=5070
Again, what happened is that they were kicking people out of an evacuation zone after Hurricane Katrina. The firearms confiscation was incident to arresting the holdouts and evicting them. That's VERY different from "house to house" searches. In any event, Congress made this illegal so it is not a threat in the future.
Ace, NOTHING you have said holds up under the slightest scrutiny.
Peter M.:
Actually, Ashcroft's DOJ opinion endorsed my position. He agrees that just about all existing regulations are constitutional. Only gun bans are unconstitutional.
PGYS:
Regula means a rule, pattern, model, or example: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin
/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3D%2340922
Indeed, numerous other websites all define regula as a rule, and at most of them it's the only definition.
And here's webster's on "regulate":
"Etymology: Middle English, from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare, from Latin regula rule
"1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country)
"2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to (regulate one's habits)
"3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire)"
Of course, any rational person would see that the first definition is the one that applies to a militia, but even if we assume that the second one applies (as the NRA does), exactly how can one say that the state's power to bring order to the militia does not include regulating the firearms which are the militia's implements?
dwlawson:
That is a VERY acontextual reading of the two amendments. First of all, the First is the only one in the bill of rights that mentions Congress. If you read the Bill of Rights as a bill, though, with 10 (or 12, originally) provisions, this makes sense.
Second, the problem with a presidential executive order is that the President has no power under Article II to do anything other than take care that the laws be faithfully executed (except in narrow orders). Executive orders require congressional authority. And that authority can't be used to violate the First Amendment, whether through the President or otherwise.
Third, given the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and incorporated the First Amendment (and I believe the Second Amendment as well, though the courts haven't done this for the most part yet) against the states, the distinction about "Congress" is one without a difference.
Fourth, you are in total spin mode here, only picking and choosing the differences you like. Obviously, the first clause of the Second Amendment is a big difference between the two. You need to address it.
As for Federalist 29, it doesn't express a constitutional restriction, but merely a prudential restriction. Indeed, the author clearly believes that the State DOES have the power to discipline the militia and should call it up for drills once or twice a year. That supports my interpretation, not yours.
We're disarming Iraqi civilians? Everybody here owns a gun. Everybody. Who's taking them away? The Iraqi government? The U.S. Army? Who? Iraqi civilians can and do own firearms.
You will notice that the author has a bunch of stuff on "well regulated". But he barely has anything on the INHERENT power of the state to regulate the militia that exists for its defense. All he says is "The Militia is not 'owned,' rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view."
For the record, I agree that the state controls the militia and organizes it, it doesn't own it. And I further agree that this control can't mean that the state can simply disarm the militia completely-- that would eviscerate the second portion of the Second Amendment.
But note what isn't there-- any serious argument that the state's power to organize the militia does not include the power to REGULATE (not prohibit) gun possession. You see, NRA folks are so busy trying to find esoteric definitions of "well regulated" that they don't really have any argument at all as to why the state's control of the militia doesn't extend to saying, for instance, "you have to tell us what guns you have so we know where we can best use you in battle". And that's because it's plainly obvious that this IS an inherent power held by a commander of a militia. Indeed, it would be a pretty ineffective, undisciplined militia-- not well regulated even in the NRA sense-- if the state couldn't obtain this information so that they could train people on weapons as well as assign tasks and supply arms to those who were underarmed.
Look, there's no simply merit to the position that the Second Amendment doesn't allow gun registration. The only merit is that many NRA types don't like gun registration, and to them, anything that they don't favor, the Second Amendment must prohibit.
One more provocative question. The NRA, as noted in my post, favors some regulations. One that they favor is must carry laws, which require states to grant concealed carry permits.
Now class, repeat after me-- if gun registration is unconstitutional, why would a concealed carry permit scheme be constitutional? Aren't they, constitutionally, completely indistinguishable?
I mean really, other than the NRA favors one because it means more gun rights and opposes the other because it might mean less, there's no principle at all here, right?
You are making a fundamental mistake. If someone has been driven to the point of starting a war, the opinion of his mortal enemies won't matter a good godd*mn. If I'm interested in their opinion, I'll read it in their entrails.
That having been said, I agree with you solely on the narrow point that gun registration laws aren't explicitly forbidden by the text of the second amendment. (Of course, printing press registration laws aren't explicitly forbidden by the text of the first amendment, but the Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is constitutionally protected.) Think of it like a "chilling effects" argument.
Considering you don't have the foggiest clue as to what they said, how would you know?
gain, what happened is that they were kicking people out of an evacuation zone after Hurricane Katrina.
Actually, the state doesn't have the power to "evacuate" you.
Too bad you didn't know that, huh?
So again, you are lying.
Repeat that, lying.
Ace, NOTHING you have said holds up under the slightest scrutiny.
Coming from you, this is meaningless.
Agreed. But the equivalent First Amendment regulation would be very restrictive licensing of "assault media" such as television and radio such that only some people with the right political connections could get permits to own stations (the California Assault Weapons Control Act exemption for movie studios); there would be licenses for distributing leaflets on city streets, and only some people (those who were properly connected) would get such permits (the state of concealed carry in California, New Jersey, New York, and a few other states); and there would be mandatory registration of all printers and printing presses, with some calling for mandatory identification of the owner to appear on every page.
I don't dispute that registration is constitutional--although there was none of it in the Revolutionary period, because most guns had no unique identification. Members of the militia were "registered," in the sense that every person who was required to serve was known to his militia commander, and there was a requirement to have a gun, but other than the gun required for militia duty (musket for most, pistols for some), no one kept track of other guns that you owned.
Licensing, in the sense of giving discretion to authorities as to who gets a license? The only examples that I can find from the Colonial, Revolutionary, or early Republic periods apply only to black people. There are no license laws that apply to every one.
Your claim that the framers didn't worry about confiscation is simply wrong. There are a number of examples that my book For the Defense of Themselves and the State gives of Antifederalists using previous confiscation attempts by the royal governors as a basis for concern about the new powers of the federal government. Governor Gage made attempts to confiscate guns, for example, at Lexington and Concord.
You must not have gotten the memo: Bellesiles' book wasn't just wrong; it was a fraud.
Gun registration is not the same as concealed carry permits, however. Some states require you to identify what guns you are going to carry. My California permit, for example, required me to list the guns and serial numbers of the guns that I was going to carry. My Idaho, Washington State, Oregon, Florida, Maine, and Connecticut permits do not.
Of course, I don't need a permit to carry concealed in Vermont or Alaska--and I expect that over time, most states will go that approach, as it becomes apparent that the original reasons for tightly regulating concealed carry don't make sense anymore.
Why not actually link to the NRA?
Oh, you're lying, that's why.
The NRA, as noted in my post, favors some regulations. One that they favor is must carry laws, which require states to grant concealed carry permits.
Uh, that is hardly a "regulation"
See, if you've been dealt a losing hand in the courts and many state legislatures, what do you do? You fight incrementally the battles you think you can win.
Instead, to you, this is "proof" the NRA is for "regulation of firearms"
Again, you leftists are so intellectually dishonest it is embarrassing.
Then why did it say "the right of the people"?
Oh, because you're lying.
Nevermind.
Madison certainly would have liked a Bill of Rights to apply to all levels of government, but the evidence suggests that Congress didn't share his broad view.
Yes, but only for some parts of the Bill of Rights. This is called "selective incorporation" or "Supreme Court intellectual dishonesty" depending on my mood.
So the Commonwealth of Virginia can censor newspapers!
Who knew!??
I seem to recall having read an excellent article by Mr. Volokh regarding other instances in period constitutions of similar prefatory declarations. It is meant to explain or disambiguate, not limit or constrain.
It supports the argument regarding what "well-regulated" meant within the context of the Second Amendment. It is not about gun control but about regularity in training and equipment
First, I'm no apologist for the NRA. Not a member.
Second, it's "Shall Issue" not "Must Carry."
Third, I suspect the constitutionality of "Shall Issue" is in providing a way to get around the fact that our right to Bear Arms is prohibited unconstitutionally. It is a work-around that many gun rights folks are, in fact, opposed to.
Which reminds me...for those that think that the Second doesn't apply to D.C. because it's not a State...what about many of our States that aren't, in fact, States? Such as the Commonwealths of Virginia, Kentucky, etc?
I think the problem with some of the other positions being taken here is the assumption that the Second Amendment resolves all contemporary gun control debates against gun control advocates. It doesn't-- but it does protect an individual right to bear arms.
I got an interesting e-mail from someone seeing this thread who indicated that he would be OK with gun registration as long as the legal strictures were put in place to prevent confiscation. This is where I always thought the logical resolution of the gun debate would lie. In that regard, I think the DC Circuit's decision is quite important because it draws the distinction between prohibition and regulation. (By the way, where did this view come from that the DC Circuit did anything more than strike down a gun ban? At the start of the opinion, they make perfectly clear that the power to REGULATE and not prohibit gun possession is unquestioned and extends to registration.)
If the Supreme Court adopted the DC Circuit's approach, I would hope that some of the gun rights' side's fears of confiscation would subside. I doubt they will, however-- it's grown pathological and is also too much of a fundraising tool (kind of like the way pro-choice and pro-life groups are always claiming that Roe is about to be overturned, whether or not it is at any particular time).
But that is where I would like to see this go. If particular gun regulations won't work (as Clayton believes), fine, don't enact them. But let's put in place the legal framework where the individual right is protected, and then have an honest debate about the utility of gun regulations without the constant invocation of house to house searches and confiscation.
Going further, I see significant problems with Simpson's proposal, including the assumption that areas declared "gun free" couldn't then have weapons brought in from areas not-yet-cleared, people caching their weapons in secret, and the willingness of the police to do this in light of gun rights sympathies among at least some of them or else the non-trivial danger they might face in doing so. Extending a little further, something like this I think, if actually conducted, could indeed provoke the sort of corrective response that the Framers intended the 2nd Amendment to facilitate.
No, of course you're not saying that.
1. The right to bear arms arises out of the fact that general public constitutes the unorganized militia under common law (the drafting history of the 2nd Amendment shows this);
2. As a matter of original meaning, the 2nd Amendment probably did not protect the right of those who were not members of the unorganized militia to bear arms; however, other provisions of the Constitution (principally the 14th Amendment) probably bring a lot of the people who were not originally included in.
This presents no problem for me, because I'm not an originalist and don't have any problem with the expansive readings of equal protection that the Supreme Court has adopted. I would say, however, that it DOES present a problem for people who swear by originalism and don't like decisions like Craig v. Boren and Romer v. Evans.
Nope. If this were the case, it would be "right of the militia" not "right of the people." Furthermore, every document from the Revolutionary, Constitutional, and early Republic period is explicit that the right is of the people--not the militia. Isn't it amazing that your understanding of the 2nd Amendment is so at variance with every state supreme court decision in the first 70 years after its adoption?
It is a right of "the people" (i.e., an individual right). But it is to serve the purpose of a "well regulated militia" for the "security of a free state".
The drafting history of the Second Amendment shows that they originally included language that made clear that the militia was made up of the people. It was taken out as redundant, as it was well established that the general public (or to be more specific, able-bodied males) were the unorganized militia.
In other words, it is an individual right, because the general public comprises the militia that might be called on to ensure the security of a free state. That's right out of the text of the provision-- indeed, it seems to me that's just about the only sensible reading of the thing. NRA interpretations read out the first clause, and gun control advocates' interpretations read out the phrase "right of the people".
What I will say about this is that the Second Amendment is highly ambiguous. If I were writing the thing, I would write it the way many state constitutions' provisions are written (i.e., making clear that it is an individual right and leaving out the clause about the militia). Because it was written this way, the framers left open a lot of questions, i.e., who is the militia, how can it be regulated, what about carrying guns that are allegedly unrelated to service in the militia (the actual question presented in US v. Miller), etc.
But you have to come up with an interpretation that gives every part of the text a reasonable meaning. And once you see the early drafts and the fact that in 1791, the general public was considered to be the unorganized militia, it makes a certain amount of sense.
But, other than facilitating confiscation, what purpose would registration serve? The police can already trace a gun found at the scene of crime (with an intact serial number) from the manufacturer to the last legal owner. What more would a database of guns and owners do?
While I am sympathetic to requiring licensing and registration of guns similarly to cars, too many influential politicians and public figures and lobbying groups have explicitly stated that they support confiscating guns. One of my guns as a scary "assault weapon". I like it because it was cheap and is rugged and I can take it shooting anywhere without being worried about getting it dirty or ruining an expensive gun. It's entirely possible that a law would be passed requiring me to turn it in.
Also, the whole gun search and confiscation thing is stupid. It would be too easy to hide guns so that any search short of a destructive one wouldn't find it. Also, guns can be made in a machine shop fairly easily and without a machine shop less easily. Just like drugs can be made in a kitchen.
EI
I know what the NRA claims it meant, but I don't buy it. First, FYI, the term "regulated" comes from the Latin "regula", which means "rule". In other words, the standard meaning of "regulated" was EXACTLY the same in the 18th century as it now, i.e., subjected to rules.
Well, those are other words, but they're not accurate words. The meaning of a word doesn't flow from its Latin roots, but from what it's used and understood to mean. If, say, you you told me that you were "run over by a station wagon" the fact that the object that hit had no feet or legs with which to "run", and was neither a "station" nor a "wagon" would not mean that you were a liar, or had fewer bones broken.
"Well regulated," in that context, at that time, meant, roughly, well equipped/ in good working order/ effective.
See http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm for several examples.
Similarly, at that time, "infringe" didn't mean "utterly forbid" but, roughly, "mess with."
In retrospect, of course, one would wish that the Framers had said, "Because individuals having guns for their own defense and mutual defense is a good thing, the government is completely and utterly forbidden to even come close to fucking around with people being able to have guns in their homes, and on their persons, no matter what Sarah Brady or anybody else might come to want," but that would have been a bit anachronistic; they did the best that they could.