It is common to see RKBA advocates say something like "What part of 'shall not be infringed' do you not understand?" It is as if there is no line to be drawn over the ownership of firearms, that it is an absolute right, when there have long been limits on first amendment rights. I suspect the Supremes will have to deal with this question somehow in the Heller case.
I'm reading Clayton Cramer's Armed America and have been amazed to read of the number and variety of laws and regulations restricting the use of arms in colonial America. It has occurred to me that maybe that is where the line is to be drawn, i.e. over "use" versus "ownership." In other words, while the founding fathers might not have thought twice about regulations or laws restricting certain uses of firearms, that the right to "keep and bear" meant an absolute (but see the caveats below) right to own ("keep") and use ("bear") for certain purposes. The meaning of "infringement" then becomes a question of who has the right to "own/keep" firearms, and what legitimate purposes are encompassed by the term "bear/use." The type of firearm (handgun, assault weapon, full-auto, etc.) really isn't even relevant to the discussion as a reasonable basis of regulation, except to the question of how it relates to what legitimate purposes are encompassed by the term "bear/use."
So what restrictions on ownership are "reasonable" or somehow put someone outside the protections of the 2nd Amendment? Felons, children below a certain age, the mentally disturbed. Any others?
What uses are legitimate under the term "to bear arms." Self-defense, both individually and collectively (militias) for sure. But not hunting. There are numerous examples from colonial times of restrictions on hunting. The restrictions were on hunting, not the firearms.
Viewed this way, handguns, including semi-automatic pistols with high cap magazines, are well-suited to a legitimate RKBA use (self-defense) and any attempt to ban them is a per se "infringement". Similarly, assault style weapons, and even assault weapons themselves, are also well suited to a legitimate RKBA use (the ability to form a militia), and banning their ownership by anyone who has a right to keep/own firearms under the 2nd Amendment is an "infringement."
We need to refocus the debate over "reasonable restrictions" to ownership, not "use. There are no "reasonable" restrictions to a "legitimate" use. It might be "reasonable" to say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to a four year old. It is not "reasonable" to conclude that a) self-defense is not a legitimate use of a firearm, or that b) a handgun is not appropriate or well-suited as a self-defense weapon.
Let's not let the antis frame the terms of the debate over what's a reasonable restriction on types of firearms.
I'm reading Clayton Cramer's Armed America and have been amazed to read of the number and variety of laws and regulations restricting the use of arms in colonial America. It has occurred to me that maybe that is where the line is to be drawn, i.e. over "use" versus "ownership." In other words, while the founding fathers might not have thought twice about regulations or laws restricting certain uses of firearms, that the right to "keep and bear" meant an absolute (but see the caveats below) right to own ("keep") and use ("bear") for certain purposes. The meaning of "infringement" then becomes a question of who has the right to "own/keep" firearms, and what legitimate purposes are encompassed by the term "bear/use." The type of firearm (handgun, assault weapon, full-auto, etc.) really isn't even relevant to the discussion as a reasonable basis of regulation, except to the question of how it relates to what legitimate purposes are encompassed by the term "bear/use."
So what restrictions on ownership are "reasonable" or somehow put someone outside the protections of the 2nd Amendment? Felons, children below a certain age, the mentally disturbed. Any others?
What uses are legitimate under the term "to bear arms." Self-defense, both individually and collectively (militias) for sure. But not hunting. There are numerous examples from colonial times of restrictions on hunting. The restrictions were on hunting, not the firearms.
Viewed this way, handguns, including semi-automatic pistols with high cap magazines, are well-suited to a legitimate RKBA use (self-defense) and any attempt to ban them is a per se "infringement". Similarly, assault style weapons, and even assault weapons themselves, are also well suited to a legitimate RKBA use (the ability to form a militia), and banning their ownership by anyone who has a right to keep/own firearms under the 2nd Amendment is an "infringement."
We need to refocus the debate over "reasonable restrictions" to ownership, not "use. There are no "reasonable" restrictions to a "legitimate" use. It might be "reasonable" to say that the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to a four year old. It is not "reasonable" to conclude that a) self-defense is not a legitimate use of a firearm, or that b) a handgun is not appropriate or well-suited as a self-defense weapon.
Let's not let the antis frame the terms of the debate over what's a reasonable restriction on types of firearms.
