Why is gun control so difficult in the US?

[CptBork]

Taking them home is part of employing them for their legitimate purposes, which are not subject to government accountability in the first place. Having them locked up in a distant repository of deniable accessibility infringes on the right to keep and the right to bear both.

If you get summoned to court, you're legally obliged to show up. You can't bring your gun with you when you do that, so the government clearly has legal premises for mandatorily disarming you under certain circumstances even though it doesn't appear to say anything about that in the constitution. It also doesn't appear to say anything about restricting people with past criminal records, and yet as far as I know that's a universal practice throughout the US.

As long as you're not denied access to the repository where your guns would be kept, your right to keep and bear them isn't infringed, and I don't see any constitutional language prohibiting the government from being in a position to confiscate weapons if deemed necessary. The 2nd ammendment doesn't appear to say anything about resisting US government authority nor have that intention in mind. Keeping guns safely stored in your home (don't see anything about that in the constitution either), they wouldn't be safe from government authority anyhow; since your guns would be registered, they'd know what you have and prepare their forces accordingly.

 

[CptBork]

BTW no one seems to have mentioned having a secured panic room in the event of an armed break in. They actually do exist, they're affordable and effective, much safer than keeping a loaded gun around. Reinforced walls and doors, fire proofing, secure telephone connection and power supply, you take your family to hide in there while the criminals do their thing ransacking the rest of the house, and within minutes the cops arrive to save you and hopefully catch the perps. If the Mafia decides to come light your house on fire and spray it with a dozen machine guns, having a shotgun under your bed won't save your family.

 

[iceaura]

If you get summoned to court, you're legally obliged to show up. You can't bring your gun with you when you do that, so the government clearly has legal premises for mandatorily disarming you under certain circumstances even though it doesn't appear to say anything about that in the constitution

Owning a gun is not a special, certain, or in any way unusual circumstance.
Of course gun keeping and bearing, like every other right, can be restricted in many ways.

As long as you're not denied access to the repository where your guns would be kept, your right to keep and bear them isn't infringed, and I don't see any constitutional language prohibiting the government from being in a position to confiscate weapons if deemed necessary.

Your right to keep and bear arms is directly infringed by laws forbidding you to keep and bear them.
The 2nd Amendment forbids the government from confiscating guns on the strength of its "deems". It needs good reason and due process of law for each individual act of confiscation.

BTW no one seems to have mentioned having a secured panic room in the event of an armed break in. They actually do exist, they're affordable and effective, much safer than keeping a loaded gun around.

They are not affordable for most people, and the gain in safety is minimal over even a loaded handgun - let alone an empty shotgun with the shells handy.

One thing about panic rooms - they are often difficult to open from the outside. Keep that in mind if you have children.

 

[Write4U]

Of course gun keeping and bearing, like every other right, can be restricted in many ways.

I would prefer the term "regulated" (the actual term used in the Second Amendment), rather than "restricted" which suggests confiscation, which no one has advocated.

 

[iceaura]

I would prefer the term "regulated" (the actual term used in the Second Amendment), rather than "restricted" which suggests confiscation, which no one has advocated.

Confiscation has been loudly and repeatedly advocated by many people in the US, examples of confiscation are often touted as models for US policy, and arguments directly implying confiscation are quite common in the public discourse - including right here on this forum, repeatedly and frequently.

The term "regulated" in the 2nd refers to specifically militia employment only, not governance of firearm ownership in general.

The US needs some restrictions on gun ownership and the behavior of gun owners, as part of sane and reasonable governance of an armed citizenry. Such restrictions are part of what sane and reasonable gun control advocates advocate - as they should be. Pretending otherwise damages ones credibility.

 

[CptBork]

Confiscation has been loudly and repeatedly advocated by many people in the US, examples of confiscation are often touted as models for US policy, and arguments directly implying confiscation are quite common in the public discourse - including right here on this forum, repeatedly and frequently.

The term "regulated" in the 2nd refers to specifically militia employment only, not governance of firearm ownership in general.

The US needs some restrictions on gun ownership and the behavior of gun owners, as part of sane and reasonable governance of an armed citizenry. Such restrictions are part of what sane and reasonable gun control advocates advocate - as they should be. Pretending otherwise damages ones credibility.

It seems that you use the militia clause to justify the kinds of weapons ordinary citizens should get to keep at home, and yet you divorce militia from general use when discussing how firearms can be legally regulated. I would think that any kind of weapon justified for private ownership based on militia utility should fall under regulations applicable to militia.

 

[iceaura]

It seems that you use the militia clause to justify the kinds of weapons ordinary citizens should get to keep at home, and yet you divorce militia from general use when discussing how firearms can be legally regulated.

I'm not the one doing that. The authors of the Constitution did that, not me.
Furthermore, you are dealing in odd language inappropriate to the situation -

I would think that any kind of weapon justified for private ownership based on militia utility should fall under regulations applicable to militia.

- there is no justification of private ownership involved. The Constitution restricts the government, not the citizenry. The entity that needs to justify itself is the government.

And since the militia involved would be some geographical or otherwise defined subset of all the adult citizens of the country, and the details of regulation they choose to impose on themselves would vary by type and location of the militia (town, county, region, city, State, nation, etc) as well as the whims of their leadership whenever they got around to choosing their leadership, there isn't much benefit to that line of approach anyway.

 

[CptBork]

I'm not the one doing that. The authors of the Constitution did that, not me.
Furthermore, you are dealing in odd language inappropriate to the situation -
- there is no justification of private ownership involved. The Constitution restricts the government, not the citizenry. The entity that needs to justify itself is the government.

How does the government deny guns to people with criminal records, then? I still see a double-standard in your argument- you claim people are legally allowed to own weapons based on whether or not they're useful for militia purposes (hence no tanks and cruise missiles, although RPG's, light armored vehicles and grenades should be allowed), and yet you don't feel they are subject to standard militia regulations. I guess it depends on who's running the federal supreme court, because the language is clearly open to interpretation.

And since the militia involved would be some geographical or otherwise defined subset of all the adult citizens of the country, and the details of regulation they choose to impose on themselves would vary by type and location of the militia (town, county, region, city, State, nation, etc) as well as the whims of their leadership whenever they got around to choosing their leadership, there isn't much benefit to that line of approach anyway.

If the US government points to the National Guard and says "There you go, that's your militia, feel free to join at your leisure", the legal requirements for permitting militia are fulfilled. Clearly people can't just form their own militias as they please just to defend themselves when the tyrannical cops show up to seize their kiddie porn collections.

 

[iceaura]

How does the government deny guns to people with criminal records, then?

By specific due process of law, of course - as in the deprivation of any Constitutional right via criminal conviction. This is hard for you to follow?

I still see a double-standard in your argument

You don't appear to have "seen" my argument at all.

- - you claim people are legally allowed to own weapons based on whether or not they're useful for militia purposes

No, I claim that the Constitution forbids US government from disarming its citizenry to the degree that they cannot form a well-regulated militia at need.
The Constitution restricts what the government is allowed to do.

, and yet you don't feel they are subject to standard militia regulations

1) They wouldn't be unless called up, of course - they're living their civilian lives.
2) There aren't any "standard" town, county, regional, State, or Federal militia regulations.

I guess it depends on who's running the federal supreme court, because the language is clearly open to interpretation.

As in Citizens United, anything is possible with a corrupted Court and a dishonest Government. The language itself is simple and clear, and the scope for interpretation by honest and literate people is severely limited. That was, after all, the intent - the authors were competent.

If the US government points to the National Guard and says "There you go, that's your militia, feel free to join at your leisure", the legal requirements for permitting militia are fulfilled

The National Guard is not a militia.
The government does not "permit" militia any more than it forbids them.
There is no "requirement for permitting militia".
At last notice, the US national militia included every adult under the age of 54.
Militia are not provided by central governments, for people to join or not.
Nothing the US government does can invalidate the rights of the people of the US - especially not those specifically and explicitly laid out in the Bill of Rights, and guaranteed in no uncertain terms. The right to keep and bear arms is one of those.
There is no requirement for possession of a Constitutional right, beyond adult citizenship itself. By definition .

And so forth.
- - - - -
This is high school civics. This is not a complex, deep, subtle, difficult matter. The political approach of the loudest and predominant gun control contingent is deeply disturbing, on several levels.

 

[CptBork]

The National Guard is not a militia.

According to the Militia Act of 1903, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

I recognize that the composition, operations and structure of the various National Guard militias varies by state. Frankly, if a backwater state like Kentucky wants to make its streets lawless and dangerous for the general public by having everyone armed wherever they go, then in my opinion they should be able to have that by all means, but they should not be able to compromise a state like New York or California's ability to enact basic gun safety laws, regulations and protocols.

I simply don't see any language in the US constitution giving its citizens the legal right to break laws enacted through legal authorities and resist arrest for doing so, other than to challenge them in the courts.

 

[CptBork]

By specific due process of law, of course - as in the deprivation of any Constitutional right via criminal conviction. This is hard for you to follow?

But how can laws be enacted to criminalize things in the first place, if their enforcement would require the violation of Constitutional rights? What's the legal definition of guvamint tyrannay?

If US governments can enact laws which potentially lead to the deprivation of constitutional rights, couldn't an elected government criminalize private gun ownership, and then strip the constitutional right from anyone who tries to break the law by owning one?

 

[Dr_Toad]

According to the Militia Act of 1903, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

I recognize that the composition, operations and structure of the various National Guard militias varies by state. Frankly, if a backwater state like Kentucky wants to make its streets lawless and dangerous for the general public by having everyone armed wherever they go, then in my opinion they should be able to have that by all means, but they should not be able to compromise a state like New York or California's ability to enact basic gun safety laws, regulations and protocols.

And I'd have used California as the example of a backwater state. Your left is showing.

Basic gun safety, as prescribed by a state that treats illegal immigrants better than the citizens said immigrants kill? That's going to work out in the long run, eh? I'd trust a hillbilly with a gun a hell of a lot sooner than I would you and the folks who parrot the idea that "gun control" should only be in the hands of the bureaucrats and the tax authorities, 80% of whom don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

Fuck that. And to hell with states that cripple the rest of the state by having shithole cities suck all the revenue from the natives of the state into the bankrupt and filthy cities, with a stop along the way to grease those political wheels. Sorry, I meant palms, not wheels.

I'll keep mine, thanks.

 

[billvon]

Basic gun safety, as prescribed by a state that treats illegal immigrants better than the citizens said immigrants kill?

Probably a better source for such information than states that place gun profits over the lives of schoolchildren - or than organizations that have financial incentives to spread fear and ignorance.

When an organization that pushes for less gun regulation is paid by the gun sold, it's likely that they have motives other than gun safety.

 

[iceaura]

But how can laws be enacted to criminalize things in the first place, if their enforcement would require the violation of Constitutional rights?

They can't.
Fortunately, that's not a problem. We have established law enforcement procedures that do not violate the Constitution, for all kinds of things we have managed to criminalize without Constitutional conflict - including some forms of speech, assembly, and religious practice.

According to the Militia Act of 1903, it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

It may have been, in 1903, although the titles of Government Acts do not create realities.
It isn't now.

I recognize that the composition, operations and structure of the various National Guard militias varies by state.

Not significantly, they don't. They are all automatically incorporated into the Federal National Guard, and they meet a common set of Federal military requirements overseen by departments of the US Army and Air Force.

That would be impossible with actual militias, of course.

I have posted a timeline of the creation of the modern National Guard as a standing State and Federal military force on this forum, a process which did not end in 1903 - or you could do some minimal Wikipedia searching on your own.

Which I am surprised you did not encounter already, actually. You of course may have overlooked my several postings on the matter recently and over the years, but how did you manage to turn up the 1903 Act without discovering the later developments? The US government even removed the word "Militia" from its organizational charts, later - partly due to the direct conflict between legal militia status and what the Feds wanted to do with the Guard.

All of which is irrelevant in a discussion of gun control and the Constitution. Nobody has to be called up and actively engaged in combat or training to be in a militia, and nobody has to join a militia to obtain their Constitutional rights.

 

[Dr_Toad]

billvon: Bullshit. Guns are legal. They're not legal in schools or courthouses, but not many people get shot in courthouses. I wonder why that is?

The NRA doesn't get paid "for every gun sold" any more than Marco Rubio gets $1.50 whenever a student gets killed by a crazy fuck who legally shouldn't have had a gun in the first place, except that the law wasn't followed.

Why don't you talk about the shooting that were foiled by people carrying guns instead of blaming gun manufacturers for the apparent inability of local law enforcement to deal with crappy situations?

Why don't you talk about cities that "enforce strict gun control", yet have gun deaths far, far higher than places that people really want to live in?

Why don't you shut the fuck up and learn to defend yourself instead of bitching about those who can?

 

[CptBork]

And I'd have used California as the example of a backwater state. Your left is showing.

The economic numbers don't lie.

Basic gun safety, as prescribed by a state that treats illegal immigrants better than the citizens said immigrants kill? That's going to work out in the long run, eh? I'd trust a hillbilly with a gun a hell of a lot sooner than I would you and the folks who parrot the idea that "gun control" should only be in the hands of the bureaucrats and the tax authorities, 80% of whom don't know the difference between a magazine and a clip.

Fuck that. And to hell with states that cripple the rest of the state by having shithole cities suck all the revenue from the natives of the state into the bankrupt and filthy cities, with a stop along the way to grease those political wheels. Sorry, I meant palms, not wheels.

I'll keep mine, thanks.

Well you have a vote and it counts for something, so if enough people think like you then it should be so. What you shouldn't have is the right to gerrymander your way to keeping the status quo with a small minority of the national vote.

Canada has loads of illegal immigrants too, and millions of regulated firearms (one for every three citizens), yet we still don't have anywhere near the murder rates you get in the US, especially from gun violence. I think a majority of Americans at this point would be quite happy with guns being regulated by people who overestimate their lethality rather than the opposite.

 

[CptBork]

I have posted a timeline of the creation of the modern National Guard as a standing military force on this forum, a process which did not end in 1903 - or you could do some minimal Wikipedia searching on your own.

According to Wikipedia, there exist several state militias throughout the US whose function is to effectively serve as reserve units for the federal National Guard. They may all have high standards of readiness and capabilities, but it doesn't look like there's a uniform structure or standard for them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

 

[Dr_Toad]

What you shouldn't have is the right to gerrymander your way to keeping the status quo with a small minority of the national vote.

How can one voter gerrymander anything? Try to pass a constitutional amendment to modify or remove the 2nd, if you want to talk about a "small minority". Then we can talk.

Considering the tone of this thread, I'm surprised that someone hasn't called me a NAZI, racist or homophobe yet.

I'm not at all surprised that our houses here aren't molested by the meth-heads in the area. At least they have sense enough to stay the hell away from the property that has a well-used target range in the back.

 

[iceaura]

According to Wikipedia, there exist several state militias throughout the US whose function is to effectively serve as reserve units for the federal National Guard. They may all have high standards of readiness and capabilities, but it doesn't look like there's a uniform structure or standard for them.

Joke?
You are trying to claim that there is no uniform structure or standard for US military forces, under US Army command, deployed in combat in Iraq.

The timeline I posted is available for your perusal in post 777 of this thread.
Here is a quote from Wiki, with bolding added:

5 Wiki) In 1933, an amendment to the National Defense Act of 1916 created a separate reserve component of the United States Army called the National Guard of the United States. Since 1933, all National Guardsmen have been members of both their State National Guard (or militia) and the National Guard of the United States.

You are trying to claim that a formally established, standing, reserve component of the US Army is a "militia". That is a bizarre claim.

Granted, it's not as bizarre as the claim that one could be forced to join the National Guard to be among "the people" who enjoy Constitutional rights in the US - but it's close.

I think a majority of Americans at this point would be quite happy with guns being regulated by people who overestimate their lethality rather than the opposite.

No majority of Americans has indicated their happiness with incompetence and bs rhetoric from either side of this one. That's the major difficulty, imho.

Although noticing you are Canadian does cheer me up some - an American who doesn't understand how the Constitution works is more disturbing.

 

[CptBork]

The timeline I posted is available for your perusal in post 777 of this thread.
Here is a quote from Wiki, with bolding added:

You are trying to claim that a formally established, standing, reserve component of the US Army is a "militia". That is a bizarre claim.

Did you not notice the word militia in your highlighted quotation? Additionally there's these guys: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force who primarily serve to augment the state National Guard as a reserve force, as in militia reserves for the army's reserves.