Skip to main content

View Diary: GunFAIL IV (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If any of that has to be paid for, then yes it (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    is a violation.

    I see what you did there.

    by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:23:01 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Can that really be true? (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hnichols, nominalize, ColoTim

      A reasonable license fee -- appropriate to administrative costs, not something jacked up like tobacco taxes -- doesn't seem like it could infringe 2nd amendment rights.

      After all, if you don't have,say ten or twenty bucks for a license, how the heck are you going to buy a gun, ammunition, safety devices, etc?

      We even allow specific reasonable restrictions on the exercise of First Amendment rights.  It's hard to believe a non-punitive license fee would violate the Second.

      LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

      by dinotrac on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:27:32 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Permits are needed for locations, (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, WillR

        not for the speech. Guns can be gifted or inherited. And obviously financial situations change.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 09:51:34 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The restrictions on the 1st (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        myboo, Blissing, Laconic Lib

        As well as on the 2nd, are generally for cases when the harm to public safety or mores outweighs the benefit to the public.  That's why, say, libel is outlawed, along with false advertising, directly threatening people, outright sedition, and so on.  

        It's also why automatic machine guns were banned a long time ago, and why assault weapons are next--- the harm to the public ensuing from their mere availability outweighs the benefits.  If a licensing system, even paid, would balance the harm to public safety presented by personal firearms with their public benefit, then it will be allowed.  It shouldn't be hard to make the case, given the sheer number of apparent accidents.

        Conservatives need to realize that their Silent Moral Majority is neither silent, nor moral, nor a majority.

        by nominalize on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:07:55 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  How about... (0+ / 0-)

        ...a small poll tax to cover the cost of running elections? Would there be a problem there? Perhaps even switch to public financing of elections but the source of funding would be an even larger poll tax (after all, all that spending is directed at those who actually vote - shouldn't they pay?).

        Presumably voter id laws with similar hoops as what it takes to get a "license to exercise your Second Amendment Right" would also be okay?

        I just don't see how one can be charged or have to jump through hoops to exercise one right but not another. As a baseline, I apply much the same criteria for restrictions on voter registration and voting, speech rights, and Second Amendment rights. I will accept somewhat higher restrictions on speech and yet somewhat higher restrictions on the Second Amendment, but nothing like a binary order of magnitude more.

        You don't, for example, need a license that shows that you have had sufficient training in "speaking safely" in order to exercise your First Amendment right to speak out in a crowded public forum because you might yell "Fire" when, in fact, you know there is no fire.

    •  Please explain how... (0+ / 0-)

      As I described in the original comment, we already have permits for concealed carry and that does not appear to violate anyone's second amendment rights. The second amendment clearly states for a well regulated militia in which regulated means trained so requiring training doesn't appear to violate anyone's rights.  You have to prove that training which a license would do so who should pay for that training?  Either taxes or a licensing fee.

      Addressing my other point, do you support eliminating our standing army?  That was after all the purpose of the second amendment.  The money we would save would surely pay for some outstanding training opportunities for everyone.

      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:33:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I will explain and answer: (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        1. Concealed carry permits are optional. One does not need a concealed carry permit to keep and bear arms. This is the best analogy to needing a permit to protest: if you want to do X with this right, but not doing so DOESN'T keep you from exercising this right, then it's OK to require a permit/license.

        2. Your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment does not reflect the current SCOTUS precedent, and is therefore a useless baseline for the debate.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 10:53:47 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you for your explanation. (0+ / 0-)

          I would like to learn more.  Can you explain to me what the first part of the second amendment means if my interpretation is incorrect?  

          "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,..."  It is not there by accident, it means something.  My "interpretation comes from reading numerous articles, both pro and con, on the subject and using my own judgement which is inherently flawed.  Please, give me a better interpretation or show me where the supreme court ruled that the government cannot require training to own a weapon.  

          We require a prospective voter to register to vote and show some form of identification such as a voter registration card or something else.  The supreme court has not ruled it unconstitutional to require a state ID for voters even though many here would like them to.  We require, in many areas, a permit to assemble in public places, that may cost hundreds of dollars.  The fact that it costs money to get a license doesn't stop us from requiring people get driving licenses which the right to free movement around our country is somewhat dependent on.  We do not allow automatic weapons, which the supreme court has not ruled unconstitutional, so limiting access to some firearms is obviously not a denial of rights.

          Please educate me if I am wrong. I am not trying to start a pie fight here.  I am honestly trying to engage someone who possesses a completely different opinion than I do.  I promise that I will keep an open mind and  if you give me a coherent, compelling explanation as to why the government cannot require a gun owner to have training and a license to prove it, I will change my opinion and say so here for everyone to see it.

          "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

          by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 11:44:39 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Answers: (0+ / 0-)

            1. I really don't think it's constructive to debate this, because it doesn't matter 'what we think'. It only matters how the SCOTUS interprets it. I would turn this around on you and say: If you had to accept (which is like accepting reality) the current interpretation vis a vis the Heller decision, do you think it's consistent to require any registration, training, etc that costs money?

            2. The prospective voter, to register, does not need to have anything that costs money to do so.

            3. You do NOT need a permit to exercise your first amendment right. You don't need a permit to blog, yell in your front yard, etc. Similarly, while you need a permit to conceal carry in most states, you do NOT need a permit to own a non-automatic gun on your property or in public where the owners of the land have not disallowed it.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:23:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Okay, I do think it is very constructive... (0+ / 0-)

              and I appreciate you staying with me here and discussing it in a civil manner.  I believe that when two people disagree and can maintain a civil discussion, it means there is hope for this world after all.

              1.)  I believe it does matter what we think because "We" are what makes up this country and "They" represent "Us".  Here is what the SCOTUS has to say in District of Columbia vs Heller:
              "Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home."  Werein it also describes conditions that may prohibit someone like Mr. Heller from owning a gun here:
              "The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."

              2.)  The prospective voter may not incur costs but it does require him or her to register and have proof of who he or she is at the time of voting.  That is similar to a license and that is what I am calling for the buying of, possession of and selling of weapons.  We can call it second amendment rights registration if you like.

              3.)  The right to assemble is right there in the first amendment:
              "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." That is the same amendment that states clearly that:
              "Congress shall make no law respecting..., or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging..." which is much less ambiguous that the second amendment and yet during the OWS movement, a common tactic was to charge exorbitant fees to assemble.  In fact, people for being arrested by the hundreds for excercising that right to assemble and many were violently assaulted.  Do you think it would have made things better if they were armed to protect themselves from the government's attempt to deny their rights?  You said that you do not need a permit to carry a non-automatic gun on your property but what determined that automatic versus non-automatic gun status?  It certainly wasn't the constitution.  There had to be judgement used as to want constituted "reasonable" for protection and standard use.  Who determined what was reasonable?  The government.  If they determined what was reasonable (and you didn't seem to have a problem with it) before people started going into elementary schools and shooting a score of six year olds in a matter of a few minutes then they can determine what is reasonable after.  

              Heller actually sets precedent for reasonable gun restrictions and requiring a license.  It only prevents outright bans.

              "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

              by Buckeye Nut Schell on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 01:13:47 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Replies, I appreciate you being civil too: (0+ / 0-)

                1. We seemed to have moved the goalposts here. You began in this comment thread by discussing regulated militias, standing armies, etc. Nothing in the Heller decision, that you quoted or otherwise, limits anything or considers them EXCEPT for when discussing the type of gun that can be restricted without denying a 2nd Amendment right. I agree with that finding fwiw and have written diaries here discussing magazine restrictions, etc favorably.

                2. I do not see your example as similar at all. If it wouldn't work as "1st amendment rights registration" or '4th amendment rights registration', then it doesn't work for the 2nd. I oppose registration, but if it was completely free to the gun-owner, I'm not sure it would be found unconstitutional.

                3. It sounds like you oppose what you see as undue restrictions on the first amendment right to peaceably assemble. If that's true, then i would tend to agree more than disagree, but it hurts your argument that gun ownership should be restricted similarly.

                I see what you did there.

                by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 02:08:15 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  So they should be handing out guns for free? (0+ / 0-)

      Last I heard you had to pay for those...

      •  I didn't say that. The 2nd doesn't say (0+ / 0-)

        'have the right to own them'. KEEP them, and BEAR them.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Fri Feb 08, 2013 at 12:26:49 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Just as... (0+ / 0-) (or someone) has to pay for their internet access in order to exercise your free speech rights here on DK. But, the government can not require you to pay them or to be licensed to post here.

        Rights are things people are allowed to exercise - not things that the government must provide people the means to exercise.

        Simplistically, a right is not something the government owes you, it is something they can't interfere with. Government involvement is not required to exercise a right -- if the Federal Government shut down tomorrow, you wouldn't lose a single right. A right can be exercised on an isolated desert island with no government and with you as the only occupant.

        (This, by the way, is why I find the term "right to healthcare" so bizarre. Such a term merely means that each person has the right to pursue, or not pursue, whatever healthcare they choose to [ignoring that the FDA interferes with this all the time!] -- not that someone else must provide the resources to act on that decision.)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site