The Partisan Divide on Issues

[David Horn]

(02-08-2020, 11:46 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(02-08-2020, 10:35 AM)David Horn Wrote: Let's go with justification, because there is no militia, which is the point, isn't it?  How can you justify A because of B, when B is nonexistent?  So the only listed justification is a myth, at this point, but the 'strict constructionist' wing of the SCOTUS had no trouble finding a penumbra to justify their argument … an argument they have bellowed is an illegitimate method to use on other issues, like abortion, in the past.  I guess that makes that entire group a bunch of hypocrites. ...

I have an easier modality: license owners and register weapons.  I see nothing in the 2nd that can be stretched far enough to deny that solution.  By implication, 'bearing arms' is a public display, so a manufactured right of privacy is out in this case.  Nor can it be considered a burden, when licensure is common for a wide variety purposes already.  Are you OK with that option?

I have no problem with your calling the supposed strict constructionist hypocrites…

I could go with licensing owners and registering weapons assuming all jurisdictions do not attempt to use the process to systematically deny a right.  Some blue areas attempting a gun prohibition have officially defined licensing and registering processes, but individual bureaucrats or law enforcement people can deny systematically the license or registration on essentially a whim.  You shouldn’t be able to deny a constitutional right on whim.  You would need to follow due process, to prove a weapon illegal, an individual a felon or insane, etc… If you attempt to deny constitutional rights without due process, that would turn into a felony.

That shouldn't be that difficult. In some states, it takes a court intervention to deny a driver's license. That seems to be a reasonable model. If you are convicted of a felony, that should be enough. If you are accused of a violent crime, you should have any guns confiscated until the case is resolved. These are the details that need to be addressed once the concept has been agreed upon, but before it's implemented.

Bob Wrote:The Founding Father’s did provide for a solution.  The US Congress could regulate the militia.  The militia was defined as all males of military age (with tweaks),  The definition is changeable with standard legislation, without an amendment.  The states appointed militia officers.  Thus, congress could redefine the militia to include everybody, and define standard practices to secure militia weapons, to include registration and licenses, to show minimum competency to handle what you owned, but it would be up to the states to implement the federal doctrine.

FWIW, we have on in Virginia. It consists of the faculty, staff and student body of Virginia Military Institute. I doubt that expanding that to the general populous is possible, but maybe. Let's admit it, the militia concept is outmoded in a modern world with modern weaponry. It takes a lot of warm bodies to defend with muzzle loaders. It only takes two to operate and support a belt-fed machine gun.

Bob Wrote:But using Rule of Law was against the interests of special interests back before the right was defined as individual.  No one wanted to admit that the militia existed, thus the right applied to all, or that the state could give orders to most everybody given that an emergency had been declared, or that the federal government had an enumerated power to regulate gun owners.

Trying to work around Rule of Law as written in the constitution and federal code is problematic.  I am sometime amused by the thought of trying to use the original intent of the founders.  The militia is supposed to be well regulated.  Owning weapons is supposed to be a duty as well as a privilege.  Going back to something like the original intent seems quite possible.

Guns are simply archaic in most places in the US with a population density above a certain level. In the country, guns tend to be OK, but an irresponsible gunowner living in a 6-floor walkup is a danger to the entire building and all its residents. Since the concept of "rights" requires universality, and the right to keep and bear arms is a clear and present danger in urban areas, some alternative modality is needed. I'm fine with people having guns where it makes sense if it can restricted elsewhere, but that seems to go against the NRA and its minions. That may change. I think it already is.