The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Bob Butler 54]

No right is unlimited. But, what limits are accepted? I have already said having a right does not imply the right to harm others or restrict their rights. I have already mentioned how the right to avoid prejudice does not exist for churches, private clubs, and I would add on private property. What other limits are there? What other examples?

The Democrats are at the moment the party of the constitution. Trump has trampled on it, so indignation is the proper response? It is a shame they reject honoring the constitution when it inconveniences them. They should at least attempt a reasonable compromise rather than tie themselves to the Jim Crow interpretation that has been rejected already by Thurgood Marshall’s court cases last century and recently the decision that owning and carrying weapons was an individual right.

What is a reasonable compromise?

Congress has a power to regulate the militia. This means to make everyman into a fighting man. The original concept was that when the militias of the several states were summoned by the Congress, that they all had the same training and would be able to act as a united force. This is an enumerated power already, and requires no changes.

The militia is obsolete. Regulating the militia would only be relevant if there were an intent to call up the militia.

Give the states the power to regulate weapons, and forbid the Congress from doing so. Again, this is how it is. While the congress was assigned the ability to regulate the militia, they were not given the power to regulate weapons owned by non called up citizens. In fact, the Second bans congress and the states the power to forbid ownership and carrying.

Give states the ability to regulate weapons. Again, no action is required. The states are sovereign. They may do as they please so long as they do not contradict the powers they have given the federal government and the people in the Constitution. In this case, they cannot prevent the ownership of carrying of weapons to be carried by a reasonable militia. That would unfortunately include assault guns, the most universal weapons carried by the National Guard common infantry soldier. You must allow a well regulated militia under the current system.

The reasonable compromise would be to distinguish between military and civilian arms. Civilian arms would include those used for target shooting, hunting and self defense. A given size of magazine, rate of fire, power of individual shot, could be included in the definition of a civilian weapon. Ownership of the more potent military weapons could be limited to those who belonged to a well regulated militia, who were bound to the orders of a state officer appointed by the state. As this militia would be well regulated, the state could say under what conditions military weapons could be carried. However, there would be a continued right to own and carry civilian weapons.

All are invited to propose other limits. If you can get Classic to agree, your compromise would become real. Assume you need Classic’s support when coming up with your compromise.