Skip to main content

View Diary: What gun control does the Second Amendment allow? (226 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Licensing restrictions are likely constitutional (12+ / 0-)

    But I'm not with you on the strict verb-based reading of the Second Amendment; after all, the First Amendment doesn't include the freedom to read and the Fourth doesn't protect one's car from being searched, only "persons, houses, papers, and effects."

    •  I think "effects" in 18th Century would (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      have extended to cars ...

      Economics is a social *science*. Can we base future economic decisions on math?

      by blue aardvark on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:51:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Adam - (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Loge, SilentBrook, ExStr8

      Here's another example of Scalia being a strict constructionist when it suits him - he believes Stinger missiles are permitted because you can "bear" (i.e., carry) them.

      By that logic, it is worth noting, viz your comment, that nowhere in the Constitution is the right conferred to actually USE arms, only to keep and bear them. Nor does the right to a free television or radio station or Internet appear anywhere in the Constitution.

      Politics is about the improvement of people's lives. - Paul Wellstone

      by occams hatchet on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 10:59:02 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dude, they practically can search your car (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      They can make you wait for two hours, check all areas the driver could access, and even run a k-9 thru it.

      I'd say our cars aren't much protected these days.  Thank you Republicans and Democrats.

      The symbol for the Republican party shouldn't be an elephant -- it should be a unicorn.

      by Deadicated Marxist on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 01:09:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  That does it! Right to Keep and Drive Cars (RKDC)! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Dammit, we need to add this to the Bill of Rights. Every American should have their right to keep and drive cars embedded in a Constitutional Right, that shall not be infringed. We need a new Amendment! RKDC!

        This right is necessary for the common defense, for uncommon defenses, and to get your Christmas shopping done.

        Are Republicans going to take away our cars? Will they infringe on our right to drive? Are they going to start restricting the size of cars or motors we can use, or the number of vehicles? It's a slippery-slope: first they come up with CAFE standards, the next thing you know they're tearing down your garage door and towing away your 454ci Mustang.

        How can any American who loves freedom, the open road, and Boss Bruce Springsteen be opposed to the RKDC Amendment?

    •  Probably not for ownership. (0+ / 0-)

      Possibly not for open carry. (that one's pending a definitive ruling on the meaning of "bear", which we will probably get int he next year or two.)

      almost certainly for concealed carry.


      Such licences would have to be non-discretionary... If you meet a clearly-defined and equally-applied-to-all standard, the government must give you one. They also could not be subject to fees in excess of what is required to process them. So the idea of requiring a licence, and making it too expensive for anyone to get won't fly. There's a long list of precedents that say that charging fees or taxes to exercise an enumerated right is prohibited by the Constitution. Those are precedents that we liberals really, really don't want to weaken.

      And a Federal license might not fly at all. The Federal government doesn't have plenary powers. There's a reason we don't have national driver's licences.


      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

      by Leftie Gunner on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 08:38:17 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site