Message to gun owners about your right to bear arms.

[JDPriestly]

We are all familiar with the language of the Second Amendment.

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

Less familiar is the language of another amendment.

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

No state shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

Your right to own a gun must be balanced against the right of private citizens including kindergarten children to their lives, their liberty and equal protection of the laws.

If a law protecting your right to own guns violates the right of others to shop or attend school peacefully without the fear of being shot, what do you think will happen to your right to own guns?

The public will end it or sharply curtail it. That is what.

Public opinion on gun rights is reaching a tipping point.

This has happened before with other issues.

The Constitution as originally ratified implicitly recognized a right to own slaves and determined how the lives of slaves should be valued compared to the lives of free men. Eventually, public opinion reached a tipping point. Slavery was abolished.

The Constitution as originally ratified did not grant women the right to vote. Public opinion on the issue reached a tipping point. Women were granted the right to vote. Some would argue even today that letting women vote was a bad idea.

The Supreme Court ruled that African-Americans could be relegated to separate-but-equal status. That was overturned.

Our Constitution is a living document. It can be amended. It can be reinterpreted.

If you value your right to own guns, you must accommodate not just your conduct (there were surely at least a few kind slaveowners) but those of other gun owners to the right of the general population, all of us, to life, and to be safe in our lives.

The onus, the burden of protecting the right to life and equal protection of those of us who do not want to own guns is on you, like it or not.

Because as sure as slavery is no longer legal, as sure as women have the right to vote, the right to "bear arms" will be ended if these horrifying incidents continue.

Any ideas from gun owners as to how to end this wanton killing?

And more guns is going to bring us to the tipping point all the faster.

[valerief]

1. You know, if a law clerk was the one who made corporations persons, then we need another law

clerk to change 'bear' to 'bare' in the 2nd amendment.

Laws are made with law clerks, not legislators, in America.

[Carnage251]

2. Do any lawyers actually think that the courts would interpret those amendments that way?

[JDPriestly]

14. The states are generally considered to be responsible for public safety with their state.

That's a pretty traditional view.

My post presumes a situation in which the general consensus among voters is that our gun laws need changing.

[SoonerPride]

3. actually you have the right to own a musket and make the musket balls in your house

that's about all you have.

you have no right to an ak47.

that's how I read the Constitution

[bossy22]

6. and I read the constitution as not protecting abortion

I don't agree with that statement but I hope you understand how that view can have alot of unintended consequences

I think Alan Dershowitz's words on this matter speak volume

[Zoeisright]

23. Alan Dershowitz can kiss my ass.

He is not the final arbiter on this or any subject. And you're a damn fucking fool if you think the right to privacy doesn't protect a person's right to have sovereignty over their own body.

[bossy22]

34. Where is there a right to privacy?

please give me the amendment number which says you directly says you have a right to privacy?

And you have a reading issue, because if you didn't you would be able to see that i said I DO believe that there is a right to an abortion.

All I'm saying is beware of the arguements you make because they may be used against you. You do not have a monopoly on an idea or a theory. That is what Dershowitz was saying, that if you interpret one amendment significantly different from the other because you don't agree with it, what's stopping someone else from doing the samething to an amendment you do agree with?

[JDPriestly]

51. Try the Fourth Amendment.

And if that isn't enough, combine it with the Fifth Amendment protection of the right to be silent.

[Egalitariat]

4. My owning a gun and your feelings of safety are mutually exclusive

I won't breach your rights.

You don't breach mine.

The government should protect us both from each other.

[JDPriestly]

11. And just how should the government do that?

Guns seem to be everywhere.

Please read my post again.

If the right to own guns makes enough people feel unsafe, so unsafe that they no longer support the right to own guns, that right will be ended or more likely severely limited.

The attitude that is stated in the words "the government should protect us both from each other" doesn't solve anything. In fact, it contributes to the problem. It demonstrates the blind spot in gun owners' vision.

The right to own guns does not trump the right of others including children to be safe.

I am not an anti-gun fanatic. Members of my family hunt and use guns for sport. They have never hurt anyone.

But my question is a serious one. How can gun owners, gun manufacturers, the NRA, all who have an interest in legitimate gun ownership and use protect their right and the rest of us from those who abuse the right to own guns?

If gun owners leave finding the answer to that question to people who are basically anti-gun, the answer will be: change the Constitution or strongly limit the right in some other way.

We are reaching a tipping point about gun ownership and whether it should be permitted. It's up to you to find and answer that deals with that minority who abuses the right that you consider so dear.

[leeroysphitz]

13. You are the one running around with a deadly weapon. The government

needs to start protecting the rest of us from YOU.

[Kennah]

15. Cars are deadlier, but no one gives a shit. If deadliness were the measure, we'd ban smoking.

[leeroysphitz]

17. We've banned smoking in nearly all public places. Why can't we do the same for guns?

Cars ARE dangerous that's why we regulate their sale and operation. Why can't we do the same for guns?

[Kennah]

19. Regulate the sale of cars? Anyone with the cash walks out the door.

Operation? People can kill with their cars yet continue to drive.

[leeroysphitz]

40. Here in Michigan you have to get a dealers liscense if you sell more than a few cars a year.

but "private sellers" at gun shows can sell as many guns as they want. Does that make sense?

[Kennah]

48. Regulating private gun sales makes sense, but start talking bans and people resist even that.

[JDPriestly]

52. In California, you have to prove you have car insurance to register your car.

You cannot drive without a license unless you want to be sentenced to jail or labor.

[aandegoons]

18. A lie

We have done wonders in the area of making cars safer, and banned smoking in many public places.

[Kennah]

20. Crashes are more survivable today, but punishment for misuse of cars is exceedingly light.

[aandegoons]

38. They are only light for the rich.

For the poor they are devastating.

[Kennah]

47. That is something which taints many aspects of our society

[JDPriestly]

53. Not true. Driving without a license gets you into trouble.

I know that for a fact. Seen it happen pretty frequently. Don't try it.

Don't drive recklessly either. And watch out if you are on medication.

[libdem4life]

24. Hold on there, Bucko. Let us review the regulations and privilege of car ownership and operation

Driver's Education class and passing said class in high school.
Driver's Education performance as to driving proficiency in high school.
Purchase of an automobile requiring cash or credit.
Registration of said automobile requiring legal registration.
Procurement of insurance of said automobile.
Registration documents to be contained and available for police review at all times.
Annual re-registration with a fee.
Periodic mechanical proof of road-worthiness on a bi-annual basis...smog permit.
Legal responsibility of vehicle's participation in any crime or driver under the influence of alchohol...HUGE penalties
Legal responsibility of any driver, insured or uninsured, who has access and drives said automobile in any circumstance.
Payment of penalties for any illegal or injurious act involving said automobile and subject to legal suit of responsibility.
All of these penalties are included to parents and/or guardians of minor children involved in or participating in said activities.

There are probably more, but it's still a pipe dream to wish and hope that anything near accessing these penalties be assigned to acts committed with guns.

But I'm all for it.

[kelly1mm]

27. Absolutly non of that is needed (except the cash/credit part) to purchase/operate

a vehicle on your own private property. Need examples - think farm vehicles.

[libdem4life]

28. I'm from the south and that's appropriate and we had hunting rifles for deer and varmits.

But the modern conversation is way different from that...like the difference between muskets and WMD called assault weapons. We all have to face up to the new world.

[Ikonoklast]

32. OK, then any firearm purchased can then stay within the confines of the owner's private property.

He keeps his guns in his own backyard, protecting his own property.

But if he wants to carry in public, be prepared to be well regulated.

[kelly1mm]

33. I think that is constitutional and I have no problem with that. nt

[Ikonoklast]

35. It also seems most problems with firearms stem when they are taken out into public.

By either criminals or anyone else.

Criminals because they are up to no good.

Other gun owners because, quite frankly, the same percentage of regular citizens that are idiots is probably at least equal to the percentage of gun owners that are idiots.

I've seen my share at the range.

Unsafe.

Untrained.

Basically stupid people that happen to also own a firearm, and are not only a danger to themselves with a loaded weapon in their hand, but to anyone that happens to be around them at the time.

[Kennah]

37. Every state is different on cars ...

... I still recall the "proficiency test" to get my Driver's License in 1984. Closed driving range, never got above 15 MPH, 3 point turn, parallel park, complete stop at the stop sign, and that was about it. That somehow prepared me to go hurtling along at 55 MPH, and today 70 MPH? Really?

Purchase a gun or purchase a car. Cash or credit or whatever else you can trade. No difference there. If you're 25, have a Driver's License and a credit card, you can rent a car at almost any airport, any time of the day, and no waiting period.

Registration and insurance of a vehicle is only if it goes off your property.

Periodic proof of road-worthiness? Not in any of the 5 states where I've lived.

Washington state is purportedly tough on DUI, but a DUI conviction means "We may suspend your driver license for 90 days to 4 years".
http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/dui.html

Drunk with a firearm, randomly discharging it, and you can expect jail time.

Deliberate acts are not covered by car insurance, so no insurance company is going to cover a deliberate act with a firearm.

If you accidentally shoot someone, maybe a homeowners policy would cover you civilly. If the person dies, that's manslaughter (Class A or B felony). If they live, second degree assault (Class B felony).
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=9A

[libdem4life]

46. I believe bi-annual smog checks, getting stopped for faulty headlights, turn signals, etc. qualify

In some states, at a certain age, vehicles are deemed to be non-repair worthy, thus junked, or may be classified as collector vehicles.

The penalties are, at best, a fix-it ticket and having to show up at a highway patrol office with the needed repairs to get the right to drive the vehicle.

And purchasing a vehicle is just the first phase. There are responsibilities and potential penalties for the owner throughout the life of the vehicle. Responsibilities for any driver of the vehicle...unlicensed, mentally deficient, underaged, including a routine stop for speeding, let alone an injury accident. If reported as stolen, not responsible. Insurance coverage varies, based on individual policy.

And for a rental car, all of these apply as well. That is why you must present a valid driver's license and your own insurance card. Your insurance first...theirs, supplemental.

A DUI in California can cost up to $10,000 and endless problems getting the license back, employment, any government position, etc. And if anyone is hurt or killed...lilkely prison. Insurance coverage becomes outrageously expensive.

And you are right, anyone can drive their car around on their property anytime they wish, as long as it doesn't hurt someone. If so, even then there is legal liability. Also, it must be registered as a Non-Op. But the minute it his a public road...all rules apply.

And insurance? Usually, if you have "Act of God" coverage on the vehicle, such as hail or flood, even on private property it pays. True, if someone can be proved to have caused an accident with a motor vehicle as an act of premeditation, the insurance doesn't pay, but they go to jail and never get insurance again, most likely.

[Kennah]

49. Smog checks for cars doesn't really translate for guns

I might point to individual ranges and lead contamination, not the guns themselves. Also there is the issue of steel or bismuth shot rather than lead, but that's a law governing usage, not the specific gun. Maybe I misunderstood and that was the analogy you were drawing. If so, then there are laws governing the environmental impact of firearms usage.

Safety checks in those states that have them for cars might equate to a drop test to see if a loaded firearm with the hammer back (assuming it has an exposed hammer) could be safely dropped and have the hammer block safety ensure it does not fire. Given some of the testing that's been done on some firearms, like Glocks by the City of Miami PD, an annual re-check would be seen as irrelevant.

For most car rentals, an extra $10 a day, and you are exempt from darned near anything except willful destruction of the vehicle.

Anecdotally, I've seen people do stuff with cars where they effectively walk away by paying a fine, and if it were a gun they'd be in jail and never owning a gun again. You can kill someone with a car, pay your fine, go to jail, get out, and go get another car. I used to work on contract at the Department of Licensing, Driver's Section, so I got to see data coming through of people who should have been in jail, never allowed to drive again, but as a society we send them on their merry way with a wagged finger.

[libdem4life]

50. It's a mandatory check up to keep your vehicle legal. Without that, you have to park it.

Same could be true for gun registration and re-registration.

And if the "Check Engine" light is on in your car when you go in for a smog check, you don't leave until that little light goes out...regardless of the cost.

And as for the rentals, better check up your insurance. It's all on you and your insurance company. If your coverage is good, no problem. But try and get one without a valid insurance card and a valid Driver's License.

And as for killing or injuring someone with a motor vehicle, curious, what state do you live in? In California, especially if you had ANY alcohol in your system, prepare for drastic a change in your life. If you are in any way at fault, prepare for a large civil suit.

And you are correct, that also used to happen with drug offenses or domestic disputes...times have changed, maybe not to your state yet, but coming nonetheless.

[Flabbergasted]

26. If people spent several hours every single day shooting their guns, like people drive, it would be a

different story. Apples and oranges.

[libdem4life]

30. Really...driving for 20 years vs. unloading a cartridge or two on some kids? Ya think?

[Ikonoklast]

22. You can't guarantee that. Lawful firearm owners remain so...right up to the moment they aren't.

Those feelings of safety are definitely NOT mutually exclusive, as your behavior, as that of any human being on any given day, is entirely unpredictable.

Sorry, but I take no one's word as gospel on anything.

[treestar]

41. I have the right to be protected from you

Who knows when you or someone who has access to your gun will snap?

Lock your house and make it tough to get into and learn how to call 911. You'll be safe enough.

[lbrtbell]

5. Not a gun owner, but I have an idea

Get mental health care for the people who are severely mentally ill. The Aurora shooter, for instance, was known to be a risk.

If someone is severely injured or severely ill, they are supposed to be in a hospital. Same for someone who is severely mentally ill.

But it's so much cheaper to ban guns than to give people medical care. And people will still die, because the psycopaths will still be on the loose to build their own guns, or make bombs, car bombs, deadly gasses, or whatever, to kill people en masse.

In fact, it's actually easier to do any of those things, than to obtain a gun legally right now. A simple Google search and a trip to the hardware store is all that stands between a potential mass murderer and his victims.

Since we can't ban the internet and hardware stores, we need to get treatment for the perpetrators before their mental state deteriorates to this extent.

[Flabbergasted]

29. It can extraordinarily simple to get a gun. Adam Lanza got one from his home...

Most people don't have the faintest idea how to make a bomb, or any of the other mentioned items, much less plant it and detonate it successfully. Few people are unaware how to use a gun however and there are gun stores everywhere. That's why we have gun massacres and not bomb massacres. These massacres are not performed by people that are out trying to put maximum effort into their exploits, ie making a gun or bomb, but something simple and infamous.

[Loudly]

7. The imaginary "right" claimed under the 2nd Amendment

deprives us of all our genuine rights. With extreme prejudice and without due process.

[JoePhilly]

8. The first 4 words of the 2nd Amendment define the SUBJECT of the Amendment.

Those 4 words are .... "A well regulated militia"

Everything that follows in the same sentence, refers back to the SUBJECT as defined in those first 4 words. The word "people" later in this Amendment is really about those "people" in a state Militia.

Both "people" and Militia" are plural. The founders grouped them for a reason.

[truebluegreen]

12. +1000

[libdem4life]

31. Please describe and identify a "militia" in 2012

[Marrah_G]

9. More regulation and limits.

AWB is just the beginning. I think there should also be a limit on how many weapons someone can own and I think sales by private people should have to go through a licensed dealer ( sort of like a consignment shop) where buyers can be carefully screened.

No, I am not a gun owner.

[Major Nikon]

10. I'm a gun owner who has never felt I had a "right" to own guns

I agree with the most liberal SCOTUS judges on the topic. I disagree with Scalia and the most conservative judges. Many DUers seem to have that reversed.

[Skittles]

16. we have let gun nuts bastardize the 2nd amendment long enough

TIME TO TAKE IT BACK

[X_Digger]

21. "Plaintiff A seeks redress from Defendant B on Due Process grounds", said no court ever.

The salient words in your quoting of the fourteenth amendment are: "no state shall" along with the bit you left out..

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Due process claims are between a citizen and the government. By their very nature, they don't exist between individuals.

[JDPriestly]

54. If the government passes a law supporting gun ownership, the government is playing a role

in depriving the person that the gun kills of life, liberty, or property.

If the government enforces the right to own a gun, then the government must balance its protection of that right against my right to be safe from your gun.

Gun owners claim that the government is supposed to grant their right to own guns. The government has the obligation to protect my life to be safe from your guns.

That is best illustrated by the events at Sandy Hook. The government had the responsibility to protect those children from the gunfire. The government can pass laws that protect children from guns.

[X_Digger]

57. The government *grants* no rights.

You keep stacking misconception onto misconception. *sigh*

Go back to your Enlightenment reading for the philosophical source of our rights. Locke, Rousseau, and to a lesser extent, Hobbes.

Regarding the danger of rights, however:

All rights are dangerous. No court has said that such danger is justification for infringing it:

See, e.g., Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U. S. 586, 591 (2006) (“The exclusionary rule generates ‘substantial social costs,’ United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897, 907 (1984), which sometimes include setting the guilty free and the dangerous at large”); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U. S. 514, 522 (1972) (reflecting on the serious consequences of dismissal for a speedy trial violation, which means “a defendant who may be guilty of a serious crime will go free”); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 517 (1966) (Harlan, J., dissenting); id., at 542 (White, J., dissenting) (objecting that the Court’s rule “in some unknown number of cases . . . will return a killer, a rapist or other criminal to the streets . . . to repeat his crime”); Mapp, 367 U. S., at 659.

[libdem4life]

25. Tax and regulate the hell out of them. Put the NRA out of business and establish a federal agency.

Turn the illegal ones in or face major jail time and revocation of RBKA iif involved in a crime...especially a violent crime or one involving children.

Zero tolerance.

[crazyjoe]

44. establish a federal agency?? you mean like the ATF?? so you think if you have an illegal gun you

should face jail time??? Friggin brilliant, why didn't anyone else think of that?? Oh...wait.....

[libdem4life]

45. Yes. A federal department such as the TSA. Regulate as strictly as motor vehicles and dogs.

Same rules as for automobiles and the privilege to drive on public roads. There is the Department of Motor Vehicles...enforced by the Highway Patrol. Try driving an illegal car, even if not involved in a DUI or accident or death. It is a serious offense with appropriate penalties related to the results...intentional or unintentionable.

The ATF would be, as the Highway Patrol, the legal enforcement agency.

Education, testing, annual or bi-annual registration, taxed, mechanical safety (like smog checks), gasoline taxes (ammo), sales monitored...same system for a motor vehicle, which is much less likely as a cause of death than a gun. It's also possible to keep an un-registered automobile on the back 40 or in the garage without penalty, carry in gasoline in gas can, drive it around the private property, but the minute it is put into service on public roads, the rules kick in and you have to pay back registration fees.

And dogs are another analogy, most places require licensing, proper fencing (gun storage) and vaccination. If it gets out and doesn't hurt anyone, it goes to the pound and the owner gets a call (because of the license in formation) to pick it up, and gets a stern lecture on animal/public safety. You'll likely be asked to show your veterinarian's record that the shots are up to date.

If it gets out and hurts or kills someone...say a kid walking home from school or a friend's house...it is taken to the pound and likely put down without too many questions or rights to the owner. The right to own a dog carries responsibilities first, then rights. And the illegal actions of an owner, as to the animal, is subject to strict penalty. Even so, the potential of any dog to manage a massacre just isn't possible. And one can have more than one dog...certain restrictions also apply...and in some cases, must get a permit for a breeder/dealer.

Even my cat has to have a license...why? Maybe to pay for the fire department when it gets stranded up a tree or to finance the local Pound. Whatever, owning domestic animals have laws in place, not just for the fun of it, but for funding the agency that regulates them, actually protects them, as well as public safety. Guns should be similarly regulated.

Both situations/agencies pay for their own existence and are not a drain on taxpayer dollar.

Analogies are never perfect, but these ones hopefully serve to bring up working systems that are already in place. Just contributing to the many good thoughts and ideas here.

And thanks for the opportunity to respond. Your question was a good one.

[former-republican]

36. It would have to be case by case

"If a law protecting your right to own guns violates the right of others to shop or attend school peacefully without the fear of being shot"


Prove in a court of law me having a gun in my home or on my possession does this to you.

[JDPriestly]

55. Your gun in your home mostly endangers you and your family. In particular, if you have children

the government can pass laws that protect them from your gun because their right to live, to have liberty and property is equal to the right to bear arms.

You have a right to raise your children as you wish, but you are required to send them to school or provide alternative education, and you have to make sure they are safe and given healthcare that they need. The government can regulate the way you raise your children so as to protect them. And that is true even though raising your children as you wish is a more fundamental right than even owning a gun.

The point is not that you should lose your guns but that the government can pass laws that regulate how you keep and use your guns so that you don't endanger others.

[Skidmore]

39. This morning the first thing I saw when I turned on the early morning news was

some guy looking earnestly into the camera and telling the reporter that "in the Federalist papers the forefathers intended people to have the same weapons as the military."

[crazyjoe]

42. shot guns should be legal, high powered rifles with high capacity clips should be limited to

law enforcement and the military.
If you are forced to shoot at an intruder in your home, a shotgun blast will not travel through your walls and into your neighbors house 500 ft away. Having a high powered rifle for home protection is stupid and irresponsible.
I believe you should be able to have a gun in your home for protection if you wish, you don't need a gun that can shoot a bullet 400 yards.
Here in Mass, you can't hunt with a rifle just for that reason, the bullet travels too far.

[crazyjoe]

43. BTW, the supreme court has already ruled on this regarding the gun ban in WashDC. I don't

think we are going to see much change in the gun laws any time soon, mostly reactionary bullshit by politicians. The most the anti gun crowd can hope for is some type of ban on assault weapons, the ruling left that point open ( as far as i remember)

[JDPriestly]

56. A ban on assault weapons that was upheld would be a good step on the parts of the courts and

legislature.

[Kennah]

58. There was already a much more restrictive assault weapon ban in place in Connecticut

It would not have changed Newtown, just as it did not stop Columbine.