The Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to get arms, true or false? (Moved from Legal)

[2agunner]

The Second Amendment only specifies the right to keep and bear arms. There's no mention of the right to acquire arms. In the absence of specifically mentioning the right to get arms, is it a right or something that should be regulated by the government/ATF? In other words, can or should the government legally regulate if law abiding citizens get guns or certain guns or gun parts? We know certain firearms/weapons can't be legally owned by individuals or things can change over time. We know the government can legally or illegally do things just like an individual can.

What was the intent of the Second Amendment at the time it was written, codified and passed as law? How can we be sure what the intent was or is of our founding fathers? Why wasn't other supporting documents or writings specifically on the Second Amendment by our founding fathers include more words explicitly stated in the Second Amendment to try to attempt to avoid lawsuits. Not that the Second Amendment is about lawsuits but in reality that's where legal determinations are made. Was the Second Amendment broadly or narrowly focused?

In some ways the Second Amendment might be too short and concise that leaves it open for people to interpret or debate the intent and have varying opinions. Perhaps, more wasn't written because it would have had the opposite effect because it would be picked apart and therefore more confusion would ensue.

Who are all the gun laws protecting? The government, other countries, law abiding citizens, criminals or a all of the above?

For the legal scholars or very opinionated, what's your thoughts on the Second Amendment regarding getting arms not just keeping and bearing arms? It's difficult enough to just keep what guns or rights we already have because it's constantly being chipped away.

P.S. Please keep things cordial. I'm as passionate about guns and the Second Amendment as anyone that believes in "freedom" which can be a misnomer in itself but you know what I'm saying. I want this to be an educational dialogue. In other words, I don't want the mods to shut this thread down because it goes south because adults can't behave themselves.

 

[hso]

One cannot "keep and bear arms" if they cannot be acquired.

 

[unclenunzie]

The simple answer is that there is an implied 2A right to acquire ("get") arms if the right to keep and bear is to have any meaning. Similar to the right to ammunition so that arms are functional. Case law eludes me right now.

 

[Old_Grouch]

There's no mention of the right to acquire arms.

As it's impossible to have, or keep something without first acquiring it I'd say the right to acquire them is implicit.

 

[starnbar]

The 2A does indeed guarantee the right to acquire arms what has happened is the talking heads are trying to formulate a method to say that is not what was intended. The Constitution was written in the COMMON MANS language of the day so that it could be read and understood by all who were literate and understood the English Language.

 

[2agunner]

Exactly, agreed to everything said so far. The reason why I asked the question is because of a conversation I had with a gun salesman. He was saying things I never heard by someone that works in a gun store before. It's logical and makes sense and I agree with what was said. The salesman can believe what he wants regarding the Second Amendment, but what caught me off guard was that he said most people think that way about the Second Amendment because they can't read and don't know history. We know many times the gun salesman is the least knowledgeable about guns. More than that, I also wanted to ask the question because he was boasting about I have hundreds of guns in my collection and have a big library of books on guns and history.

Anyways, I have believed for decades what has been stated and will continue to believe that regarding the Second Amendment.

Bottom line: he was saying the right to acquire arms is not implied, which is illogical. He further stated that at the time the Second Amendment was passed it was intended for only to protect the right to keep and bear arms with what people already had at the time, not to get more guns. Don't know if that's true or not but that's why my post was lengthy.

Key takeaway, definitely take what anyone says about the Second Amendment including gun salesman with a grain of salt that says I know everything there is to know about all things gun related.

 

[dweis]

In law there is a premise called Condition Precedent. Briefly, it means “a condition or an event that must occur before a right, claim, duty, or interests arises. A condition precedent is contrasted with a condition subsequent.

The condition precedent to keeping arm would be acquiring arms. If you cannot acquire them then you have no way to keep for bear them. So acquiring is the first step before exercising the right. It is protected by 2A.

 

[2agunner]

You said exactly what we said and believe only in legal terms. Cool.

 

[kje54]

If one is a historian, cultural anthropologist and has dabbled in lexicography we know that in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries the phrase "Well Regulated" was in common usage. It meant to be well put together, well run, well oiled, etc, not as it is currently used in the 20th century application, i.e. government regulation. Any who question this need only study where the Constitution covers government regulation. In every aspect where the Constitution covers government regulation it specifically states what is to be regulated, how it is to be regulated and who does the regulating. That is not present in the 2nd Amendment therefore we know the founders meant well trained and well organized in this instance. We also know from historical records that each of age citizen was responsible for providing their own firearm(s), powder and ball. While some States had armories the weapons in those armories often were sold to people of lesser means at a discount making payments over time.

 

[CapnMac]

If you cannot acquire them then you have no way to keep for bear them. So acquiring is the first step before exercising the right. It is protected by 2A.

Note, too, that this allows for a person to "make" a thing in order to "have" a thing.

For instance, to be able to write down political speech, one must be allowed writing tools. Which includes carving a goose quill with a benknife the came as buying a word processor.

 

[mcb]

I have always been of the opinion that the right to bear arms is assumed, god given, natural, and the 2A was there to limit the government's ability/scope to infringe on this right.

Humans are the apex tool user and tool maker on this planet. The reason we as a species are where we are is because we are tool users/makers. Many argue our tool usering/making is part of our evolution as a species. The idea you can take guns from humans is as laughable as the idea you can stop us from being tool users/makers in general. We will make them if and when we think we really need them.

 

[hso]

he said most people think that way

I immediately suspect someone of trying to justify their opinion instead of having any real data when I hear "most people...". OR they're trying to scare me into believing "most people" think in a threatening manner.

What we can bet on is that most people haven done any study on a topic and certainly little research and need to have the facts calmly explained while pointing out anyone trying to make them FEEL threatened is manipulating them.

 

[2agunner]

Here's an interesting plot twist. This can explain why he feels the way he does about some things. The salesman said I don't carry on gun on me because I can't take another person's life because it's about being human and helping other people. I don't care about my life because I'm saved by God but I will do what I have to do to protect my wife and daughter. I used to be in the military and killed people for the government. I used to be fanatical about guns, government, politics, the end of the word is coming, etc. So, I have no fear if I'm taken by a gun if I don't have a gun. It's almost like this came out of a Hollywood movie script.

Anyways, I make no judgment as to his religion or the way he lives his life according to his beliefs. I only mention these things because it's interesting how life experiences can change one's perspective on life in the overall scheme of things. We all go through things in life and have some kind of trauma. If anyone says they have absolutely no trauma or has never had an experience or incident that deeply affected them then they are lying. The truth is probably everyone needs some kind of therapy. Don't ever mention therapy to a tough guy or certain cultures because there's lot of stigma attached to therapy and who's knows how successful that can be anyways. But, I digress. Maybe we can totally overcome trauma or will have trauma to some extent until the day we die. His choice is to have trauma and be unarmed. My choice is to have trauma and be armed. The choice is yours. Whatever you choose, God forbid if we have to use our God given right to use the tools we make for protection.

 

[Mycin]

I wonder how Mr. Gun Salesman justifies selling something he doesn't seem to think people should be allowed to buy? It's like a vegan working for a meat packing plant, or Nancy Reagan selling crack.

 

[2agunner]

Hypocrisy? This is how I make a living? That's between him and God.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Off-topic for the Legal Forum so moved here.

 

[bdickens]

The right to keep and bear something presupposes the right to acquire it.

 

[burrhead]

If nothing else, the 9th Amendment covers acquisition of a gun.

 

[Good Ol' Boy]

See the part that says "keep", that implies one already has arms. So there's that.

Beyond the obvious what has been said by other members pretty much covers it.

 

[BJung]

Exactly, agreed to everything said so far. The reason why I asked the question is because of a conversation I had with a gun salesman. He was saying things I never heard by someone that works in a gun store before. It's logical and makes sense and I agree with what was said. The salesman can believe what he wants regarding the Second Amendment, but what caught me off guard was that he said most people think that way about the Second Amendment because they can't read and don't know history. We know many times the gun salesman is the least knowledgeable about guns. More than that, I also wanted to ask the question because he was boasting about I have hundreds of guns in my collection and have a big library of books on guns and history.

Anyways, I have believed for decades what has been stated and will continue to believe that regarding the Second Amendment.

Bottom line: he was saying the right to acquire arms is not implied, which is illogical. He further stated that at the time the Second Amendment was passed it was intended for only to protect the right to keep and bear arms with what people already had at the time, not to get more guns. Don't know if that's true or not but that's why my post was lengthy.

Key takeaway, definitely take what anyone says about the Second Amendment including gun salesman with a grain of salt that says I know everything there is to know about all things gun related.

What is the English Bill of Rights? Who were the French Huguenots?

 

[Walkalong]

One cannot "keep and bear arms" if they cannot be acquired.

This.

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

Over thinking a touch?

 

[MEHavey]

"Well Regulated"

Trained
Capable
Competent...
In proper working order.

NOTE: The term Regulator clock was used originally in 19th century railway stations
where conductors would change or "regulate" the time on the clocks from one railway
station to the next, thus regulating time so all of the clocks were in sync with each other.

.
.

 

[denton]

Trained
Capable
Competent...
In proper working order.

NOTE: The term Regulator clock was used originally in 19th century railway stations
where conductors would change or "regulate" the time on the clocks from one railway
station to the next, thus regulating time so all of the clocks were in sync with each other.

.
.

Back when Heller was being argued, I got on a kick researching the old meaning of "well regulated". You're exactly right. I found examples in the literature of well regulated minds, well regulated hair, well regulated teams of horses, well regulated music, a well regulated telescope, and many more.

Of course, 2A says that the militia must be well regulated.

 

[AK Hunter]

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.

How can one get arms to keep if you don't have any, we are not born with them. It's a warning to the government to not infringe on our rights because citizens with arms are necessary to secure a free state.