Gun Laws And What The Second Amendment Intended - Seattle Times

[WillyT]

Gun laws and what the Second Amendment intended
BY MICHAEL WALDMAN - The Seattle Times
July 14, 2014

<snip>

As school shootings erupt with sickening regularity, Americans once again are debating gun laws. Quickly talk turns to the Second Amendment.

But what does it mean? History offers some surprises: It turns out in each era, the meaning is set not by some pristine constitutional text, but by the push and pull, the rough and tumble of public debate and political activism. And gun rights have always coexisted with responsibility.

At 27 words long, the provision is the shortest sentence in the U.S. Constitution. It reads: "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."

Modern readers squint at its stray commas and confusing wording. The framers believed in freedom to punctuate.

It turns out that to the framers, the amendment principally focused on those "well regulated militias." These militias were not like anything we know now: Every adult man (eventually, every white man) served through their entire lifetime. They were actually required to own a gun, and bring it from home.

Think of the minutemen at Lexington and Concord, who did battle with the British army. These squads of citizen soldiers were seen as a bulwark against tyranny. When the Constitution was being debated, many Americans feared the new central government could crush the 13 state militias. Hence, the Second Amendment. It protected an individual right - to fulfill the public responsibility of militia service.

What about today's gun-rights debates? Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention; nor with scattered exceptions in the transcripts of the ratification debates in the states; nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment, where every single speaker talked about the militia. James Madison's original proposal even included a conscientious objector clause: "No person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

To be clear, there were plenty of guns in the founding era. Americans felt they had the right to protect themselves, especially in the home, a right passed down from England through common law. But there were plenty of gun laws, too. Boston made it illegal to keep a loaded gun in a home, due to safety concerns. Laws governed the location of guns and gunpowder storage. New York, Boston and all cities in Pennsylvania prohibited the firing of guns within city limits. States imposed curbs on gun ownership. People deemed dangerous were barred from owning weapons. Pennsylvania disarmed Tory sympathizers.

<snip>

More: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2014/07/14/233219/gun-laws-and-what-the-second-amendment.html?sp=/99/337/

[Fred Sanders]

1. Why is it so hard to understand what "in a well regulated militia" means? It is the very weakest

part of the argument for the holy cow of gun enthusiasts.

[pipoman]

3. Because the English language evolves

Definitions change, as is the case with "well regulated".

[Fred Sanders]

4. Did the meaning of "militia" change, because it seems the same....just no reason for them now.

[pipoman]

16. "just no reason for them now" is your extreme minority opinion...

Students of history would chuckle at your complacency and feelings of absolute safety.

[Oakenshield]

35. And everyone else in the reality-based community would laugh...

LAUGH I say, at the idea that some mob of weekend warriors would stand even a sliver of a chance against a modern military.

[Sam1]

81. We have well regulated militias in USA right now

they just have the name of National Guard with the name of the state appended such as the Michigan National Guard.

[Hoyt]

12. Because gun fanciers want/need their gunz. They don't care what it means or

what their gun love does to our society. So they make up the most absurd interpretations of the amendment and refuse to accept opinions like that in OP.

Even gun fanciers right here make it clear they would not abide by limits on toting, assault weapon bans, laws like Australia enacted in 1996.

[pipoman]

17. Lol.. you are too much...

[Fred Sanders]

18. The gun enthusiasts do not care for historical context, they care only for their guns.

[pipoman]

24. Your historical context is settled law...

There are those who still believe the earth is flat too...

[Fred Sanders]

25. Bravo, a proposition of questionable merit followed by an inanity.

[pipoman]

27. There is another extreme fringe who believes there is a chance

Roe will be overturned too...

[samsingh]

82. i absolutely agree with you

[pipoman]

2. It is telling that every example in this of restrictions

Are in states and cities within the states....not federal. Big gun control would do well to look at that. ..

[samsingh]

6. there is no such thing as big gun control

gun control supporters are usually victims, friends relatives of the victims of gun violence, and those who see the damage that gun proliferation causes.

[pipoman]

8. Almost every dollar can be tracked back to one billionaire's pocketbook. ..

[samsingh]

33. what about the nra and their purchase of elections?

[pipoman]

38. what about them?

What about GOA, Wild Turkey Federation, Ducks Unlimited, what's your point? Even this article in the OP is the result of a relationship with that same billionaire. ..

Nobody denies that there are big gun rights groups. Big gun control exists, even though it is controlled by one single authoritarian.

[samsingh]

40. i think the nra's bullying of politicians to get their way is moe pertinent than goa and turkeys

[pipoman]

45. They couldn't "bully" (lobby) politicians

If the politicians constituents didn't want what they are lobbying.

[gcomeau]

51. Ahem. Steaming mountain of bullshit.

Support for universal background checks as of April of last year:

ABC / Washington PostSupport: 86%. Oppose: 13%
CNN: Support: 70%. Oppose 29%
Quinnipiac: Support: 91%. Oppose 8%
CBS: Support 90%. Oppose 8%


NRA killed every attempt at universal background checks dead. Tell me all about how they could only do that because of the public support for doing so.

[Fred Sanders]

52. The man is a stinky high mountain of NRA propaganda, all laughably wrong on fact, long on yelling.

[pipoman]

53. Yet, to this point you haven't offered a single answer or citation

In this thread. Only name calling and ridiculous bluster and meaningless tirades of word combinations.

[samsingh]

56. he provided evidence that the nra bullied congress to go against public support

what part of those numbers is unclear?

[pipoman]

59. see post 58 below

[pipoman]

54. Why do you suppose a Democratic congress can't get a

UBC bill out of a Democratically controlled committee? The NRA? Well maybe the NRA pointing out that it could never make it through a constitutional challenge. No, UBC will never be a federal requirement and virtually every gun control politician knows why...it has little to nothing to do with the NRA, and everything to do with constitutional limitations on the authority of the feds to regulate intrastate commerce of legal personal property.

States can require it, but alas big gun control really doesn't want it to be, what on earth would they talk about if the issue of garage sale gun sales was solved?

[gcomeau]

57. I repeat my previous post title. -eom

[pipoman]

58. Gottcha

Just a little more to ponder. ..You seem to believe that the NRA is the mouthpiece of the "firearms industry". Why...why would the "firearms industry" not want the same level of regulation applied to every gun sold, as is required for every single gun they sell? You do know that every single new firearm sold in any state in the US requires a background check or equivalent, no? That there is only one very specific kind of sale exempted? That is a sale between 2 parties living in the same state who are neither one in the firearms business. That's it. Every single other purchase requires a check.

Why do you suppose those sales were exempted in 1994 in the first place? Why hasn't a single solitary bill ever emerged a judiciary committee regardless who chairs the committee? Since 1994! It is so simple. They can't find a way around the commerce clause.

You have been lied to. Why wouldn't Brady just make public the reason? Because their identity is built around "the gun show loophole". They know states can require bg checks, they know 80% of the public agrees (myself included). There are several states that would be very easily lobbied into it. The one hold up is that federal firearms licensees aren't required in their regs to provide bg checks for private sales. A simple regulatory change with absolutely no constitutional issue could be done via executive order tomorrow. With this states could require bg checks on private sales without having to spend millions reinventing the wheel (as those states which already do require ubc have had to do.

I don't recall ever being on any NRA website, am not and have not been a member, am a civil liberation Democrat and have been here a long time.

[gcomeau]

60. For fuck's sake...

You do know that every single new firearm sold in any state in the US requires a background check or equivalent, no? That there is only one very specific kind of sale exempted?

Yeah, go ahead and try and minimize that all you want with all the references to "only one very specific kind of sale" that you want. That "one very specific" kind of sale only means that EVERY SINGLE FUCKING PRIVATE CITIZEN IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY that isn't an official gun dealer can sell weapons to anyone the hell they want with no background check requirements.

Oh gosh, well if that's the only hole in the coverage it's just damn silly anyone is worried about it!

[pipoman]

61. lol...ffs indeed...

[IronGate]

63. And, again, you're wrong.

A private citizen in one state can't sell a firearm to a citizen from another state without the transfer going through a FFL background check.
Maybe you should learn Federal Firearms laws before posting such nonsense.

[gcomeau]

64. And...

...the citizen from the one state will DETERMINE the person they're selling to is from another state by....


Doing what?

And law enforcement will prove they knew the buyer was from another state when no background checks were required for the purchase unless that information was already established... HOW?

[pipoman]

65. probably happens, it's illegal, beyond enforcement what do you wish to do about it?

All the more reason to quit wasting time lobbying impossible bills every session of Congress and start lobbying states. If 80% want bg checks, as seems to be the Stat of the moment, there is no constitutional argument against states requiring bg checks.

[IronGate]

66. The point is that you were posting inaccurate information.

It's against federal law, background checks are required for that type of sale, so what's your solution? Make it a double secret law?

[samsingh]

75. simple explanations

1. the gun lobby fights every attempt to add any controls on gun sales.
"why would the "firearms industry" not want the same level of regulation applied to every gun sold"

Simple searches on the internet confirm this.

2. Why do you suppose those sales were exempted in 1994 in the first place? Why hasn't a single solitary bill ever emerged a judiciary committee regardless who chairs the committee? Since 1994! It is so simple. They can't find a way around the commerce clause.

Anytime a gun control bill is proposed, the NRA starts to threaten retaliation at the polls. Remember what the NRA was saying about Gore? Again, there were public statements bragging that they cost him his home state. It's not the Commerce Clause issue.

3. I don't know how you can speak about what the Brady people ware thinking.

4. Just because you haven't been on an NRA website doesn't change the fact that they spend lots of money trying to change the outcome of elections. It would be about time for rich people to support the gun control side as human massacres don't appear to be enough to make a lot of gun supporters look at reasonable controls to limit the damage inflicted on society by their fetish.

[pipoman]

76. Keep denying facts as has been done for the last 20 years by gun control

And you'll get 20 more of nothingness.

If 80% of the public support UBC, threats of retaliation at the polls is pretty hollow, no he Bradys show what they are thinking by doing the same thing over and over expecting (actually knowing nothing can happen) different results.

Check the numbers, the last presidential election cycle Michael Bloomberg spent over twice as much as the NRA.

Your (and gun control in general) argument with this will result in more of the same forever.

[samsingh]

77. from CNN

a simple search on google pulls up hundreds of articles that show you are denying facts.

NRA expands its role from fight for gun rights to conservative causes

.....

The man who shot Martin, George Zimmerman, said he acted in self-defense. Police haven't charged him and legal experts say Florida's "stand your ground" law may shield Zimmerman from prosecution.



The National Rifle Association worked with ALEC to spread similar laws that are on the books in at least 25 states.

Those laws grow directly out of the Second Amendment ethos the NRA has championed: "the ethos of individualism, of having a gun, of individuals taking the initiative," said Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland and at Cornell University who has studied and written about the NRA for decades.

link: http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/06/politics/nra-alec/

[pipoman]

78. And what has big gun control done while the NRA

has been working states and making progress? They have done nothing but work the feds and made absolutely no progress. Where have I denied that the NRA lobbies states? I haven't, they do, and that is exactly why they win.

[hack89]

79. Dems killed UBCs by bundling them with an AWB

If Reid had gagged Feinstein and only introduced UBCs there was an excellent chance they would have passed. Dems made it easy for the NRA.

[WillyT]

7. Also Telling...

Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention; nor with scattered exceptions in the transcripts of the ratification debates in the states; nor on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives as it marked up the Second Amendment, where every single speaker talked about the militia.

From the OP...

[pipoman]

9. Hmmm....do you suppose the founding fathers

Thought that "the people" didn't have an inalienable right to self defense? Why do you suppose they chose the words "the people" in the declaratory statement rather than "the militia"?

[WillyT]

10. Yeah... And As The Article States... They Were REQUIRED To Have Arms, Unless They Objected...

The arms were to protect the newly formed government, so as not to have a standing permanent army.

Hunting and self defense, were side benifits... as far as the Second Amendment was concerned.

It turns out that to the framers, the amendment principally focused on those "well regulated militias." These militias were not like anything we know now: Every adult man (eventually, every white man) served through their entire lifetime. They were actually required to own a gun, and bring it from home.

"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."

[pipoman]

14. No, only the militia was required to supply their own arms,

Not "the people" in general...why wouldn't they said "the militia" if that was their intent? Answer, it was never their intent....there isn't a single supporting statement anywhere...there is latitude for state regulation. The SCOTUS interpretations to date are completely consistent with all of the writings and documents of the time. They also left tools to change the Constitution if public support exists to do that. There is no right to change the meaning of words because changing the constitution is too difficult.

[hack89]

80. But state constitutions from that era recognize an individual right

How do you explain that if the leaders of the day did not support such a right?

[Hoyt]

13. Because it's poor grammar to use the same word twice in the same sentence.

You know how precise those founding fathers were. It's clear what they meant, it's just not acceptable to those who can't live without their gunz.

[pipoman]

15. The rules of grammar in legal writings are nothing like

The rules of literary grammar. Legal documents require unambiguous language, not creative writing. I spent 20 years writing investigative reports for attorneys. ...ambiguity is not tolerated if a person's name is stated three times in the same sentence there are never, however, "he's or she's" in a sentence.

[Hoyt]

21. I can assure you, there is no ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment. Gunners know what it means,

Last edited Mon Jul 14, 2014, 09:59 PM - Edit history (1)

but support the NRA and other gun promoters in the obfuscation. It's really sad what gunners will do to keep access to gunz.

[pipoman]

22. lol...I'm not the one pretending "the people" doesn't mean "the people"..

As stated, I understand changing the meaning of words is easier than amending the constitution to say what you wish it said. We just have way too much history of the actual intent to make that a sensible tact..

[Fred Sanders]

20. It is not acceptable to put the reason for the amendment in historical context, it would be obvious

that the amendment would conflict with reality. Still no tyranny in sight.

Why does NRA HQ omit the "in a well regulated militia" from the inscription at their front door?
Why do they avoid all discussion of that inconvenient part?

[Fred Sanders]

19. Once again facts get in the way of the propaganda, same reason they reject science, too many facts.

[pipoman]

23. You guys. ..

Still no reasonable answer to the simple question at hand. Word salad tossed regularly.

[Fred Sanders]

26. We have given the answers, the OP you have obviously not read has answers, you refuse to listen.

And judging by your comment output you never will read the OP, your loss.

[pipoman]

29. well then, humor me...what is MICHAEL WALDMAN'S answer to

The 2 simple questions in post #9. Who is MICHAEL WALDMAN, and why should I care what his opinion is? I doubt his credentials are any more impressive than many others who have an opinion on this topic...hell, I've been studying the issue for 20 years...how old is MICHAEL WALDMAN?

[pipoman]

31. Probably answered my own question....

Michael Waldman is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, a nonpartisan law and policy institute that focuses on fundamental issues of democracy and justice.

Of coarse from there searched "Brennan center for justice bloomberg"...imagine the results,...sounds chummy

[samsingh]

5. this makes a lot of sense - individual gun lovers are the pawns of the gun makers who

are profiting from the sale of guns

[pipoman]

11. Individual gun owners are exercising their rights

There isn't a single gun maker in the Fortune 500...the whole of US makers revenues combined wouldn't make the Fortune 500....it is simple supply and demand just like Xbox, beef, cars, homes, and virtually everything else. Pretending there is something sinister afoot is

[samsingh]

32. these are the rights that gun makers insist individuals have

I'm glad they haven't made the fortune 500, that doesn't mean they aren't still making a lot of money.

[pipoman]

37. And the SCOTUS, and the vast majority of the public, and the

President, and the Democratic party platform. ...

[samsingh]

41. frankly i think the President and the Democratic party platform on guns is vastly more sane than

scotus, repugs, and the nra.

[Skittles]

28. it needs to be rewritten so stupid people can understand

[pipoman]

30. Which stupid people? Those who believe

The founding fathers never intended people to have a right to self defense and want to change the meaning of words to prove their point, or those who believe that the vast case law is based on the realities of the intent?

[samsingh]

42. that's not what the poster said

apparently the founding fathers were for self-defense but not the loony type espoused by gun lovers.

great job putting words in people's mouth and love the way gun lovers parse every word in every sentence for what they want (see 2nd amendment interpretation)

[pipoman]

46. Have you any answers?

It isn't the gun rights groups who are saying the founders didn't mean what they debated, and agreed was an unambiguous statement of their intentions for this limitation put on government. I don't recall seeing your explanation of why they chose the term "the people" if they really meant "the militia". This is so 2nd grade simple it is astounding.

[samsingh]

55. its first grade, there is a compound sentence - the meaning is clear

and people is plural not single

[pipoman]

62. This question is off the table forever...at least as far as either of us are concerned. ..

[samsingh]

67. its fundamental

[pipoman]

68. Yeah, fundamental lack of understanding of the document

And it's history among those who refuse to accept they are wrong about the completely ludacris "collective" lie.

[samsingh]

69. i don't think so - the nra, people who love guns, people who enjoy the gun lifestyle,

and people who are scared have created a gun culture, used and twisted the 2nd amendment to enact all sorts of shitty legislation. How did 'stand your ground' get passed and where does the 2nd amendment say you can kill someone if you feel threatened (not if you're threatened, if you FEEL threatened).

where does it say you can openly carry firearms? Magazine sizes?

the misinformation is coming from the gun lovers side.

[pipoman]

70. As I've said before. ..

States have latitude, the things you are talking about are in specific states...like where the NRA spends most of their lobbying time. The second is pretty well decided.

I've heard if you tell yourself a lie over and over you believe it....it's the only explanation I can think to explain unbelievable statements of complete fiction as in your post 55

[samsingh]

71. as i keep saying, its the gun lobby that is selling fiction

that is resulting in innocent people being slaughtered.

[pipoman]

72. Some people require a boogie man to help them understand tragedy. ..real or imagined...

About "people" being plural and therefore collective in the second amendment and singular in the entire rest of the BoR...I'd like to hear more about that jewel of logic...

[samsingh]

73. no, some people are looking for ways to stop these gun massacres

while others say:

1. let's wait and see what happens, don't be too hasty to try and stop gun violence (hoping the nra can step in and change the subject)
2. throw out stats that are generally narrow and incorrect to show that more guns don't lead to more violence
3. ignore world stats that show the success of gun control in every other industrialized country
4. refer to the second amendment in sweeping terms that anything goes

notice, you did not rebut my points about controls on open carry, stand your ground. why has the nra promoted these - they are not mentioned even in the contexts of the second amendment that gun lovers favor?

[pipoman]

74. I don't know or care about the NRA

There is nothing to rebut. These things are STATE issues, not federal. Never will be federal. If you wish to change those things it can and has been done at the state level.

Now, as for failure to respond to posts, you failed to answer any of the issues/questions in my post 58. Your turn.

[BrotherIvan]

36. ZOINK--You just broke the internet

None of us are worthy.

[needledriver]

48. This sentence is grammatically identical to the Second Amendment:

A well educated public being necessary to the function of a democratic republic, the right if the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

Who gets to keep and read books — a well educated public, or the people?

[JayhawkSD]

34. The argument is not so much about the militia,

as about the founding fathers' profound distrust of a standing army. They abhorred the idea, feeling that the mere existence of such a thing was an invitation for national leadership to go to war. Witness the Madeleine Albright saying "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?"

So concerned were the founders about preventing a standing army that the constitution prohibits any allocation of funds for army purposes to be for a period of greater than two years. Boy, what a joke we have made of that proposition!

Interestingly, the founders had no such reservations about a permanent navy, and placed no such constitutional restrictions on naval funding.

"Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention"

Which is completely irrelevant, because the Supreme Court has ruled conclusively and unequivocally that the Second Amendment right to bear arms is specifically an individual right.

[pipoman]

39. I suspect that there isn't

"Surprisingly, there is not a single word about an individual right to a gun for self-defense in the notes from the Constitutional Convention" 

Because it was/is such a basic human right, they couldn't fathom anyone ever making a claim that it isn't. Further, they likely thought "the people" was pretty unambiguous, as it is unless you have people trying to change the meaning of words..who could have predicted that?

[samsingh]

43. the supreme court that stole the election from gore essentially voted that way

are you happy with that decision too?

[JayhawkSD]

49. Neither happy or not happy.

It is what it is. Life happens. I don't take these things personally, because I don't think this country is supposed to be run to suit my personal preferences. There are forces much bigger than my desires.

[samsingh]

44. it's the same supreme court that ruled that corporations are people

and have religion

[JayhawkSD]

50. A much earlier court made that first decision.

And a later court made the second.

[FBaggins]

47. The individual Right is implicit in the text

It's clear that "the people" cannot mean "the government" since the contemporary documents (Federalist papers, convention notes, etc) show that these militias could end up being used to oppose that government (as they just had against the crown)...

... the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
...the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
... The Powers not delegated to the united States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the People

Are these also collective rights that can also be legislated away when they become inconvenient to a powerful segment of the population?

Lastly - the "it's the militia stupid... and we don't need militias any more... so the amendment is moot" argument falls of its own weight. The constitution says clearly that such a well-regulated militia (and armed populace) is necessary to the security of a free state. It's clear that the author would disagree with the claim that an armed populace is necessary for freedom... and no doubt many would agree.

The solution is simple enough. Amend the Constitution. Stop pretending that it says something that it clearly doesn't say. No amount of word smithing can turn those 27 words into "the right of individuals to keep and bear arms (up to an including everyone not in the military/guard/law enforcement) can be infringed since the role of the militia is now played by a standing army"