Are You 'Right' To Own A Gun?

DC Examiner ^ | 8/3/06 | Marc Danzinger

[steve-b]

WASHINGTON - We're going through one of those phases where people are reading the news and talking about buying guns.

As someone who's blogged for years under the pseudonym "Armed Liberal," you'd think that I'd clearly approve. And part of me does, in no small measure because it reflects a shift in the consensus away from "helpless citizen" toward "citizen with the intent to be more self-reliant."

And, to be honest, I see this issue largely as one of attitude. I've said in the past that the largest impact of gun ownership is symbolic, like a Sikh's knives. Owning a gun — and the attitudes that come with it — symbolize the notion that, first and foremost, we are adults who have the freedom to be entrusted with dangerous tools.

But gun ownership is not entirely symbolic, and there's the rub.

While I believe that everyone should have the right to own a gun (with the obvious exceptions of the criminal and the insane), that doesn't mean everyone should choose to own a gun.

That's because while I believe in rights, I also believe in responsibilities — and I don't think they can be separated. You want rights? Great. You have to take a good helping of responsibilities to go with them.

So let me take a moment and talk to the people who are reading the news and thinking of heading to the gun store.

First, go sleep on it. Owning a gun is an immense responsibility (one that too many people take far too lightly). If you own a gun, you are responsible for it 24/7/365; are you really prepared for that?

A gun is not a magic talisman that will make your problems go away by possessing it or brandishing it. While I'll acknowledge that many confrontations do end when the bad guy sees a gun, I'll suggest that assuming that will apply in your case is cargo-cult thinking at its worst.

So simply owning a gun doesn't by itself make you a whole lot safer; famed firearms instructor Jeff Cooper said that "owning a gun doesn't make you armed any more than owning a piano makes you a musician."

So you have to adopt a set of behaviors and habits.

Some are about the security of the gun — keeping it from being stolen, or from letting children have access to it. Buy a gun safe. Use it religiously. I had one firearm stolen from me 20 years ago, and it still weighs on me today.

Some of it is about self-knowledge. There's a little bit of crazy in all of us. Is yours fully under control? Are you sure? Would your friends all agree? What if the answer to that question isn't an immediate and obvious "Huh? Of course it is"?

And if you aren't 100 percent sure that five of your closest friends would answer the same way, think hard before you head to the gun store. Self-restraint is not a habit our modern life cultivates, but it is one that is simply mandatory for people who possess dangerous tools.

Some of it is about committing to some basic level of competence in order to make the gun a useful tool. There are classes you can and should take almost anywhere. They range from the big-time schools, like Gunsite (www.gunsite.com), Insight (www.insightstraining.com) and Thunder Ranch (www.thunderranchinc.com). To local instructors like Mike Dalton (www.isishootists.com/training.htm) in Los Angeles, NRA classes or other private classes at ranges throughout the area you live.

While it may seem cumbersome to think about all this, the demands really aren't that high. The gun is dangerous and valuable, so secure it. It can make bad attitudes and bad behavior deadly — make sure yours are well under control.

And finally, remember that owning a gun isn't nearly the same thing as being able to use one safely and effectively, so learn how to use it. If you can't comfortably go that far, please don't buy a gun. It's that simple.

If you can comfortably go that far, welcome to the community.

Personally, I need to get to the range this weekend....

[RKV]

Just a bit of follow up on how "mute" the Supreme court has been on the subject of the right to keep and bear arms...

"More especially, it cannot be believed that the large slaveholding States regarded them as included in the word citizens, or would have consented to a Constitution which might compel them to receive them in that character from another State. For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Chief Justice Taney for the majority in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)

Anyone who can doubt that the meaning of "privileges and immunities" as contained in the 14th Amendment includes an individual right to keep and bear arms protected by the Federal Constitution over and above the powers of the States is willfully ignorant of the plain facts. Of course that description would fit rp to a "t."

[Panzerlied]

It is interesting that, to the framers and opponents of the 14th amendment, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms WAS incorporated!

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Right To Keep and Bear Arms: The Intent of the Framers, by Stephen P. Halbrook, Ph.D., attorney and
counselor at law

[William Tell]

I asked you two explicit questions and you responded to neither one. You are evidently happy with the nonsense that has supported the anti-gunners over the years.

Why do you downplay the importance of the phrase "citizens of the United States"? The language of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly applied that status to ME, since I was born in the US. That amendment protects me from any state enforcing a law which abridges the privileges and immunities of all citizens of the United States.

All that is missing is for the Supreme Court to recognize the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms by "incorporating" the Second Amendment, and then the state of Kalifornia will no longer be able to violate my right to keep and bear arms.

How do you make the case that the Supreme Court should not "incorporate" the Second Amendment?

[MarkL]

I didn't know there was such a thing as an armed liberal.

Think Che Guevera, Kmer Rouge, and the SLA. Armed "liberals" are actually hard core socialists or communists. They tend to be "true believers" who convert "non-believers" at the barrel of a gun.

Mark

[proudofthesouth]

An armed liberal is a hypocrite!

[William Tell]

RKV said: Of course that description would fit rp to a "t."

It took hundreds of postings in a thread many months ago to get as far as the questions that I asked in my posting 141.

RP, perhaps unintentionally, created an ambiguity regarding whether he was stating his own opinions or the decisions of various courts. I think we all can recognize that the court cases regarding the right to keep and bear arms are a tangled mess.

The confusion is a tremendous asset to the anti-gunners because they can make virtually any claim they want and find some unrefuted decision somewhere to back them up.

The Supreme Court's Miller decision, for example, is actually extremely pro-individual rights. It created a ridiculous test regarding whether a short-barreled shotgun is useful to a well-regulated militia, but it in no way challenged Miller's standing to bring the case nor his right to possess such a weapon if it was useful to a militia.

I have never received from somebody knowledgeable in the law a good explanation of the actual legal ramifications of the Miller decision. The case was reversed, which means the dismissal of the charges by the original court no longer was valid, and the case was remanded, presumably back to that original court.

What I haven't been able to make sense of is what the original court would then have done if Miller had still been prosecuted. I would presume that the judge would have instructed the prosecution that it had the burden to demonstrate that the weapon WAS NOT useful to a militia.

The alternative would be to believe that the Supreme Court was relegating the Second Amendment to the status of an affirmative defense, requiring that the prosecution prove nothing. Despite Miller, I believe that most courts would probably not admit evidence showing the usefulness of a firearm to a militia as part of a defense, despite the clear meaning of Miller.

[RKV]

You might enjoy this on Miller - "CAN THE SIMPLE CITE BE TRUSTED?: LOWER COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF UNITED STATES V. MILLER AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT by Brannon P. Denning"
http://www.guncite.com/journals/dencite.html

[robertpaulsen]

"I asked you two explicit questions and you responded to neither one"

I only saw one question. I responded to it -- I said they do not.

"Perhaps you can clarify for the rest of us whether you believe that the failure to "incorporate" the Second Amendment is judicial error."

I believe that those amendments that were incorporated was judicial activism. The 14th was never meant to incorporate the Bill of Rights. Hell, nothing changed for 100 years after the 14th was ratified!

"Why do you downplay the importance of the phrase "citizens of the United States"?"

Because it was only meant to give the newly freed slaves some basic rights.

"The language of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly applied that status to ME, since I was born in the US. That amendment protects me from any state enforcing a law which abridges the privileges and immunities of all citizens of the United States."

Yes, but those privileges and immunities are basic and limited (things like the freedom to travel from state to state and the freedom to enter into contracts and stuff like that). Your key rights were protected by your state.

"How do you make the case that the Supreme Court should not "incorporate" the Second Amendment?"

Well, at least one court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry. So, if Congress wished, they could pass a law banning concealed carry and it would then apply to every state. You want that?

Gee, maybe some future liberal U.S. Supreme Court will decide that handguns do not qualify as "arms" since the common Militia soldier didn't carry one. Maybe they'll decide that "keep" means "keep in a state armory".

Yep. Lets have five liberal justices defining the second amendment for every state and every citizen. Like they defined "privacy" to include the murder of the unborn and applied that to every state in the union.

That's how I make the case. History.

[robertpaulsen]

"It is interesting that, to the framers and opponents of the 14th amendment, the right of the individual to keep and bear arms WAS incorporated!"

The 14th amendment was ratified in 1868. In 1875, in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 US 542, the U.S. Supeme Court concluded, "The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ..."

Now, please explain what you are talking about.

[tpaine]

-- there was this rather famous 1833 case (right around the same time, huh?) of Barron v. City of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 in which Chief Justice Marshall (one of the Founding Fathers, by the way) gave the opinion.

Yep, an aging Marshall gave us an erroneous opinion which tried to compromise the split in the Union over slavery & 'states rights':

"The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government, as its judgment dictated."

The US Constitution also placed limitations on the States constitutions and laws. -- Article VI is the primary one.

"Had congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states, by affording the people additional protection from the exercise of power by their own governments, in matters which concerned themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language."

They did, in Article VI. -- Marshall ignores its clear words on the supremacy of our Law of the Land.

"In almost every convention by which the constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government-not against those of the local governments.

Encroachments from local gov't were covered, -- by Article VI.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them."

Marshall totally ignores that Article VI contains the application to States, not the first nine Amendments.
He also ignores the 1Oth, which specifies that some powers are prohibited to States, but reserved to the people. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed --- is one such prohibition.

What say you paulsen? Can you even attempt to address the issue?

[robertpaulsen]

"and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak"

There's your clue, hotshot. Freedom of speech, the same as would be granted BY THE STATES to their own citizens.

Freedom of speech was defined and protected by each state as was the RKBA.

[Dead Corpse]

So you approve of Marshall's power grab? Nice to know. He was WRONG as my earlier quotes from Jefferson, Washington, ect... amply prove out.

Even at the time of ratification, those who wrote the Constituion were of veried minds about its powers and extent. Marshall, obviously, was one of those who wanted States to retain ALL power with no real set of mutual Rights protected from ANY encroachment.

Again, we've had this same discussion before. You are no more correct in your assumptions now than you were then.

What I find amusing is that you fight so hard against a PROTECTION for a Right. Silly little troll...

[Dead Corpse]

You have yet to show where in the Constitution the passing of an Amendment requires "incorperation" by a Judge.

[Panzerlied]

Robert, I thought that was obvious. What aspect needs clarification?

[tpaine]

william tell:

How do you make the case that the Supreme Court should not "incorporate" the Second Amendment?"

Well, at least one court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry.

Court opinions are not 'rules' -- they are not the 'law of the land' paulsen.

So, if Congress wished, they could pass a law banning concealed carry and it would then apply to every state.

Another paulsen howler.. He assumes Congress can pass an unconstitutional infringement because of a court "ruling".

You want that?

I want you to support your delusions..

Gee, maybe some future liberal U.S. Supreme Court will decide that handguns do not qualify as "arms" since the common Militia soldier didn't carry one. Maybe they'll decide that "keep" means "keep in a state armory". Yep. Lets have five liberal justices defining the second amendment for every state and every citizen. Like they defined "privacy" to include the murder of the unborn and applied that to every state in the union.

Rant on. USSC opinions & 'definitions' do not change our Constitution.

That's how I make the case. History.

Your own pitiful take on our history. -- Ludicrous.

[William Tell]

Thanks. Your response appears to be on point.

That is, you do not believe that the Second Amendment, or any amendment, should be incorporated.

Also, you do not believe that the right to keep and bear arms is among those "privileges and immunities" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, despite the use of that phrase in one of the most significant Supreme Court decisions in our country's history.

We have accomplished a great deal because we can see quite plainly that we differ on these two points.

You further wrote: "So, if Congress wished, they could pass a law banning concealed carry and it would then apply to every state. You want that?"

I fail to see the logic in claiming that applying the Second Amendment to the states will provide the Congress of the United States with additional power to infringe the right to keep and bear arms. Whatever the Second Amendment means, it already limits the power of the federal government. Applying the Second Amendment to the states would not change in any way the constraints on Congress.

Perhaps you can provide an example of any incorporated "right" resulting in a reduction of Congress' limitations regarding that right.

Why do you suppose the Dred Scott decision mentioned the right to carry arms along with the right to freely travel? And yet you would claim that one is basic and fundamental and the other is not? What level of significance do you attach to the right to keep and bear arms? Is this not the mechanism by which oppressed people can abolish tyrannical governments? Just what do you believe the Second Amendment means?

While I certainly agree with you that liberals will twist any legal situation to suit their own ends, I do not fear incorporation of the Second Amendment.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Well, at least one court has ruled that the second amendment doesn't protect concealed carry. So, if Congress wished, they could pass a law banning concealed carry and it would then apply to every state. You want that?"

And other courts can decide that the Second Amendment does not protect "open carry".

Which one do you suppose is right? If they are both right, then it should be possible to outlaw the bearing of arms altogether. That would not seem to be in accord with the Second Amendment.

The alternative is to recognize that the Second Amendment is silent on the fashion of bearing of arms. The limitations on the right need be no more than that needed to protect the rights of other people. I just don't share your concerns here.

[Old Student]

"...I am no longer certain I have the physical assets necessary to employ my favorite method of self-defense, which is a rock or 2x4 to the temple, which naturally leads to having to pull the trigger, and that scares me.

How about it TP? Should guys our age turn the keys over to the youngsters?"

I know you didn't ask my opinion, but I'm giving it anyway! ;) NO, we old guys shouldn't turn it over to the young folks! Heck, some of them are the ones we need to be prepared to defend our families FROM! A gun, and the knowledge, skill, and will to use it are what makes the 90 year old the equal or superior to the 18 year old with a knife and an attitude. As the old saw goes, "All men are created equal; Col. Sam Colt made 'em that way!"

And no, I'm not 90, and probably won't ever be, but I didn't expect to make it to 30, and here I am at 50+, so I'm not ruling it out, either. Currently, my favorite last-ditch home defense weapon is a WWII NCO-issue samurai sword; no flash, no noise, and it won't reach across the street and kill someone I don't intend, but someday I won't be strong or quick enough to use it.

[loboinok]

So which did he live to be...98 or 91?

[looscnnn]

Your testosterone levels raising does not have anything to do with mishandling firearms. (Guns links to testosterone levels studied)