Dick Metcalf responds

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think what Metcalf and others fail to see is in the Bill of Rights the ONLY amendment that has the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is the second one.

Even the first, freedom of speech, does not have it.

Yes there now are restrictions on the 2nd Amendment. But they are slowly being shown to be false (until recently SCOTUS never even took 2nd Amendment cases that forced them to admit it is a individual right.

And all the amendments that have restrictions are supposed to have MINIMAL restrictions.

All Metcalf did was push the idea they can ban this.. or ban that.. for 'reasonable' restrictions. He does not even dwell on the fact that until the late 1800s you could own just about anything you wanted.

Metcalf's sword will not be missed.

Deaf
 
But in the case of concealed carry permits, where I think (as an example) the 2nd Amendment is violated is when there is a cost/charge for the training required to obtain the permit - even the cost of the permit itself. That is an infringement on the 2nd because it keeps some people from having the right to bear arms - can't afford the cost.

Disagree. If you want to have a protest (ie. exercising your 1A rights), you often have to get a permit and sometimes pay a fee. The gov't (at least according to the courts) has the right to request 'reasonable' restrictions and impose reasonable fees.
 
Disagree. If you want to have a protest (ie. exercising your 1A rights), you often have to get a permit and sometimes pay a fee. The gov't (at least according to the courts) has the right to request 'reasonable' restrictions and impose reasonable fees.
Does "shall not be infringed" appear somewhere in the first amendment?

;)
 
What he didn't understand was that gun owners (at least the aware, activist ones) see themselves as an embattled minority.

"See themselves"? Gun owners ARE an embattled minority. I could cite a dozen instances that prove this is more than mere self perception. Ask Coloradans if this battle is self perception. Ask New Yorkers, Californians if this battle is self perception. The battle is real.
 
Metcalf's editorial quite frankly is poorly written, slapdash and self-contradictory. Whatever he meant to convey, he did a poor job of it.

Dick Metcalf, "Let's Talk Limits", Guns and Ammo Magazine, Dec 2013.

Talk limits on the lawabiding that will have little or no impact on the bad guys leading to another round of limits on the lawabiding? Let's not.

I have no problem getting and advocating all the training you want. It's a never ending process.

That said, I am opposed to government making training a requirement for gun ownership, no more than I support being required to take a journalism course and defamation and libel law course before being allowed to write a letter to the editor or speak from atop a soapbox.

Why? Because of the "reasonable regulations" imposed by former gun prohibitionists in Chicago and D.C. Look at how training is treated in jurisdictions run by policy makers who loathe and despise guns and gun owners in the first place: Chicago requires training to get a permit then through zoning makes it impossible to operate an indoor shooting range within the city limits. Washington D.C. requires multiple trips to city offices requiring a working class citizen to take time off work each time.

The Supreme Court overturned Washington D.C.'s handgun ban in 2008 and ruled in 2010 the same principle applied to Chicago's handgun ban in 2010. So the two jurisdictions to "comply" have crafted restrictions, including training requirements, that amount to a defacto ban for the ordinary citizen in the name of reasonable regulation.

I will agree with Metcalf's line: "I firmly believe that all U.S. citizens have a right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe they have a right to use them irresponsibly." As far as I can tell, no irresponsible use of arms is legal anywhere: it falls under criminal law including reckless endangerment as well as laws against overt dangerous or criminal acts, including murder, assault, etc. as well as civil tort.

But when it comes to this: "And I do believe their fellow citizens, by the specific language of the Second Amendment, have an equal right to enact regulatory laws requiring them to undergo adequate training and preparation for the responsibility of bearing arms." I do not see that in "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." If you serve in the militia (volunteer military service) you should be "well regulated" in the 18th century meaning: militarily drilled, disciplained and trained. But the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be strangled by legal regulations like D.C. and Chicago.

Metcalf also quotes the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aquilar: "Of course, in concluding the Second Amendment protects the right to possess and use a firearms for self-defense outside the home, we are in no way saying that such a right is unlimited or is not subject to meaningful regulation. That said, we cannot escape the reality that, in this case, we were dealing not with a reasonable regulation but with a comprehensive ban."

My problem is that we are expected to compromise with the very people who believe that the "comprehensive ban" WAS a "reasonable regulation" or limit, who comment that Heller'08 and McDonald'10 were only 5-4 decisions and will be undone if they have their way.

I suspect Dick Metcalf is one of the elite hunting club types isolated from working class hunters' and shooters' (and self-defenders') concerns who would talk about limits which don't touch him as much as they touch us.
 
Regardless of what Metcalf said.

Regardless of what you think of Metcalf's editorial.

Get out and VOTE.

By not voting for any candidate, you might as well cast a vote for worse candidate.

If you do not vote, do not complain of what happens.

Even if you do not agree with the positions of all the candidates, sometimes you have to vote for the least objectionable candidate.

Apologizes for drifting off topic.
 
Does "shall not be infringed" appear somewhere in the first amendment?

I think you are being way too much of a strict Constructionalist. Like I said before, even the SCOTUS's most ardent proponent of strict constructionalism (Scalia) would not allow class-3 weapons to felons. Would you?

Besides that, if you are going to be such a strict constructionalist, where you define 'arms'? From a historical context of the Founding Fathers? In that case either a) we should only be allowed muskets since that was the arm of the day or b) the definition or 'arms' evolves over time, in which case, could I not consider class-3 weapons or RPG's or a tank as arms? Neither view makes much sense to me.
 
What I meant to say by "gun owners see themselves as an embattled minority" was that politically they may be a minority. Since more than half the households in America have some kind of gun, gun owners are actually a majority. But in any case, pro-gun people find themselves beset in every side. They have to band together, and Metcalf's column wasn't helpful in this.
 
I think you are being way too much of a strict Constructionalist.
Surely such a thing must be possible, I suppose. You could say with confidence that I feel we need about a million more such strict Constructionists. Nine of them sitting behind a particular bench...(I'd be ok with only eight if it came to that)...would be a great start.

Like I said before, even the SCOTUS's most ardent proponent of strict constructionalism (Scalia) would not allow class-3 weapons to felons. Would you?
He's no strict anything. And yes. Once released into society. The idea that felons need to walk freely among us, live beside us -- but that's ok because we have a nifty cool LAW that prevents them from having anything in the world they might want -- is a fairy tale we tell ourselves. If it helps you sleep at night, well that's pleasant ... quaint really. It provides me no such solace. If we're going to let them walk free, for all I care we can GIVE them an M-16 on the way out the door. Makes not one iota of difference to how dangerous or rehabilitated they are. *

(* -- Actually, presenting someone who's being released with all rights and privileges again might just be a positive step toward helping them get and stay on the narrow way.)

Besides that, if you are going to be such a strict constructionalist, where you define 'arms'? From a historical context of the Founding Fathers? In that case either a) we should only be allowed muskets since that was the arm of the day
Oh heavenly days, THAT old tired argument again? That's tripe and you know it.

...or b) the definition or 'arms' evolves over time, in which case, could I not consider class-3 weapons or RPG's or a tank as arms?
You do know, right?, that in the American revolution the artillery was often provided by private individuals out of their own holdings? Oh, but that was just the most powerful type of armament in the world at the time!

I certainly do consider NFA Title II (they aren't "class-3 weapons," no such thing) as arms which are the right and duty of Americans to own and bear. The 2nd Amendment protects our rights to EXACTLY those things, far more than it speaks in any way to your Rem 1100 ducking shotgun or Win Model 70 deer rifle. The 2nd Amendment protects the American citizen's rights to own ARMS OF WAR. Not hunting or other mundane-use implements.

Neither view makes much sense to me.
That's too bad, but keep reading deeply and thinking about the implications of the various things the founders wrote and believed, and about what government was and did in their day and how they reacted to it. It will come to you. Eventually it comes to everyone who studies these matters deeply. It becomes impossible to ignore or deny.
 
What I meant to say by "gun owners see themselves as an embattled minority" was that politically they may be a minority. Since more than half the households in America have some kind of gun, gun owners are actually a majority. But in any case, pro-gun people find themselves beset in every side. They have to band together, and Metcalf's column wasn't helpful in this.
that is true but I bet more then half of gun owners agree with metcalf
 
Sam1911: while I respect your opinions, and I fully understand the context of armed rebellion as an 'ultimate' check on the gov't, I cannot agree that artillery or heavy weapons should be part of the everyday populace without at least *some* restrictions. I think the majority of the populace would not be comfortable with such notions are yours, nor would the courts.

That said, again, I respect your right to hold your opinions, I just believe they are extreme.
 
Sam1911: while I respect your opinions, and I fully understand the context of armed rebellion as an 'ultimate' check on the gov't, I cannot agree that artillery or heavy weapons should be part of the everyday populace without at least *some* restrictions.
Kind of defeats the purpose then, eh? I would imagine the very first "restriction" would be "don't use this to overthrow your rulers."

I think the majority of the populace would not be comfortable with such notions are yours, nor would the courts.
But that's not really very meaningful. The majority of the populace holds lots of views I don't. And the majority of the populace can't tell you which came first, World War I or World War II (LOL) let alone what our founding fathers really did, or said, or what the documents they wrote in founding our government say, or why they chose to write what they did.

Some of those on the courts may understand these things, and some tiny few may try to uphold them. Much of the population of the jurists operating today are too dedicated to the current status quo to really care about the founding of our nation or to find the Constitution to be much more than an impediment to their vision of society -- or at least, are too comfortable with the way things are to do anything at all productive in changing course.

That said, again, I respect your right to hold your opinions, I just believe they are extreme.
There is no inherent harm in holding views that some consider extreme. Without folks who did so, our history would be appallingly different, and may well have ended for our species before the first writings were scratched onto cave walls or clay tablets.
 
If we are all so upset with Metcalf, who was just exercising his First Amendment right, why are we not just as upset at the GOP for NOT funding Cuccineli adequately to compete and win against the rabid antigunner McAuliffe? In the grand scheme of things, this boo boo will be far more damaging than anything Metcalf could write in a magazine.
 
Once again, he was doing more than "exercising his 1st Amendment right," as pointed out before.

However, what in the world is to say some folks are NOT upset with the GOP about that?

(I mean, those of us who believe that the GOP cares at all about gun rights, of course.)

Are we only allowed to be concerned about one thing at a time?
 
If we are all so upset with Metcalf, who was just exercising his First Amendment right, why are we not just as upset at the GOP for NOT funding Cuccineli adequately to compete and win against the rabid antigunner McAuliffe? In the grand scheme of things, this boo boo will be far more damaging than anything Metcalf could write in a magazine.

Once again, he was doing more than "exercising his 1st Amendment right," as pointed out before.


WHAT First Amendment right was the bugger exercising?
 
One of the things the progressives are very good at doing is setting the terms of the narrative to their advantage. "Global warming" took a beating because it was clearly proven that over the past 20 years there was no warming. The answer? Change the narrative to "climate change." You can't argue climate change, the climate has always been changing. However, by changing the terms being discussed, the issue is prolonged and now framed in manner that cannot be disputed.

We need to do the same thing with constitutional rights. Discussions of the Second Amendment seemed to be framed in terms of "gun control," or "gun rights"; and people who want to uphold the Second Amendment are defined as "gun rights advocates."

This is detrimental to the issue of the Second Amendment. By allowing the discussion to be framed around an inanimate object the narrative is changed to control of a "thing" without any reference to a constitutional right. A personal right granted by the Constitution is conflated with owning / control of an object.

By doing that, the argument becomes impersonal and is automatically weakened because the issues are now about owning, possessing, and regulating an abstract item (a gun) rather than restriction of a personal right. Framing the discussions as controlling an inanimate object (a gun) confuses the issue. It is NOT an issue about guns, but constitutional rights.

I think we need to start changing terminology of the discussion to our benefit. People who want gun control need to be labeled as "anti-Second Amendment." The sooner we quit using the term "gun control" and start framing it in terms of pro-Second Amendment versus anti-Second Amendment I think we will better clarify what is really at stake.

I'm no longer interested in discussing the issue in terms of "gun control" or "gun advocacy." I'm interested in why someone thinks it is okay to selectively or partially support Constitutional Amendments. You cannot pick and choose which Amendments you personally like and support those, while withholding the same level of support for one that you find distasteful or that you feel is out of step with modern society (mostly what is currently fashionable).

That is exactly the problem with Melcalf's editorial. He wants to be seen as being in step with what he views a segment of current society will find acceptable; and then tries to convince the rest of us that we're just backwards in not acknowledging his views.

Metcalf lost his job? Fine by me. I run exactly the same risk. If my employer got complaints about me from 10 clients - I'd be gone and it would be MY fault, and not the fault of everyone who complained.

I certainly have the constitutional right to voice my opinions on any subject to my clients. Likewise, I run the risk of those clients who disagree with my opinions complaining to the upper management of the corporation I work for. If the cost/benefit ratio of me being employed is viewed as negative by management - I'm gone.

I understand that. I want to keep my job. I don't offend clients.

Mr. Metcalf exercised his constitutional rights to self expression and no one repressed his freedom of speech. The fact that the customers complained to management is an indication to the management that his opinions may not be aligned with the best interests of the corporation. When that happens, it is not unusual for the corporation to make adjustments to the personnel so that customers/clients are no longer offended.

That's the way it works...maybe he'll learn to better judge his personal actions in his next job. We can only wish him the best of luck and hope that he, at some point, learns what "keen sense of the obvious" may mean. We can also hope that through this experience, he has learned that the majority of Pro-Second Amendment citizens do not take their rights granted under the Constitution as lightly as he seemingly does.
 
Last edited:
I think you are being way too much of a strict Constructionalist. Like I said before, even the SCOTUS's most ardent proponent of strict constructionalism (Scalia) would not allow class-3 weapons to felons. Would you?

Besides that, if you are going to be such a strict constructionalist, where you define 'arms'? From a historical context of the Founding Fathers? In that case either a) we should only be allowed muskets since that was the arm of the day or b) the definition or 'arms' evolves over time, in which case, could I not consider class-3 weapons or RPG's or a tank as arms? Neither view makes much sense to me.
Just to remind you that muskets were the assault weapons of their day back then. Muskets were your class 3 weapons of the day back then so why all the angst.

As to reasonable restrictions thats simply garbage. The moment you start charging fees to exercise a Right, placing limits on those Rights they no longer are Rights. These Rights become nothing more than a list of privileges that can be retracted anytime the government sees fit to do so.

Shall not be infringed in the Second Amendment means no restrictions at all on the exercise of said right. None whatsoever. If you want to include the ability to restrict the Second Amendment then we have a process for that.
 
The job of the Supreme Court is NOT to judge and/or interpret The Constitution. The job of the courts is to rule on laws and actions to see if they measure up to the standards of The Constitution. The Constitution is a yardstick used to measure and verify the length of an official inch, so to speak. It is not a lump of Play Dough for them to change to be what they (in power) say it is. God help us if/when the rulers publicly announce that does not say what it says but says what they want it to say.
 
I just found this thread because I don't get G&A. I think I have an idea, though, of what he must have said. If I'm correct then I don't think I agree with his basic premise. Still, such doesn't offend me and I simply take it as "his view" and nothing else. He's still one of us; he just bumped his head.:banghead:
 
In 1776 you COULD own a cannon.

In 1776 you COULD own mortars.

In 1776 you COULD own sniper rifles (that is rifled armies as smooth-bore was the standard infantry arm.)

In fact well past the CIVIL WAR, 1864 or so, you COULD own Gatling guns as well as cannon.

I don't think up the 1930s there were restrictions on machineguns either (except maybe in the liberal north.)

What is more several SCOTUS decisions pointed out the 2nd Amendment had a relationship to defending the country, and hence military weapons.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).

This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

But earlier SCOTUS ruled that the rights to keep and bear arms as per-constitution.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876).

This was the first case in which the Supreme Court had the opportunity to interpret the Second Amendment. The Court recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms was a right which existed prior to the Constitution when it stated that such a right "is not a right granted by the Constitution . . . [n]either is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

And yet, people have questioned what does 'people' me (as in WE the People!)

United States v. Verdugo-Urquirdez, 110 S. Ct. 3039 (1990).

This case involved the meaning of the term "the people" in the Fourth Amendment. The Court unanimously held that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment had the same meaning as in the Preamble to the Constitution and in the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, i.e., that "the people" means at least all citizens and legal aliens while in the United States. This case thus resolves any doubt that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html#SC1

Does that mean I think everyone should have a A-Bomb?

No.

But does that mean with a through background check one can own a machinegun or even a cannon?

YES.

Deaf
 
In response to Metcalf's whiny discourse:
  • You have the right to speak. You however don't have the right to:
    • speak on somebody else's dime.
    • be respected [never mind liked] for the things you say.
If he doesn't like that, he can start his own magazine, or get Ernst Stavro Bloomberg to buy him one.
 
reframing the dispute from right to use object to Constitutional Right

buckhorn cortez, your post #137 brings up an interesting and valid way forward.
 
+1000, Metcalf proclaimed himself a legal scholar and stuck to this ridiculous interpretation of "regulated".

Once again what test do you take to exercise your 1st amendment rights? That the same list you should need for the 2nd Amendment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top