Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedAre gun control laws compatible with the Constitution's right to bear arms provisions?
Results so far:
| Yes | 43% | 197 votes | Total: 461 votes | |
| No | 57% | 264 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIn much the same way that interpreting the Bible has always been an intellectual and emotional quagmire, the debate about gun control in the most violent, developed country in the world has been obfuscated by countless interpretations. Virtually all of the arguments take into account only one aspect of that part of the US Constitutional that speaks to citizens and guns: the part that best serves their position. Few take into account the full context and meaning of the law as it has been preserved since its ratification over 200 years ago.
The second amendment to the US Constitution states: "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." Clearly, this statement integrates two concepts. The first is that there must be a "militia" prepared at all times to defend the country and that the militia must be "well regulated." Our founding fathers did not want gangs of armed men sneaking about the countryside like Sunni or Shia insurgents in today's Iraq.
The second concept integrated in the amendment is "the right of the People to keep and bear arms." If we take this statement out of context, forgetting the first concept for the moment, this seems to say, outright, that every citizen can possess guns if they so desire. Gun advocates hold that this statement protects their rights to arm themselves in the privacy of their homes without restriction.
Together the two concepts forming the amendment appear to provide for the publics access to guns - that is "People" spelled with a capital "P" - not individuals per se. Guns are protected from government chicanery so that local militias, such as a National Guard unit, authorized by a lower regulatory body, such as a state, would be prepared to stand at arms against the federal government should it try to oppress the People.
Within the regulating authority of the state, controls can be implemented to manage the militia and its weaponry. In its act of regulating the militia, it is prudent for the state to distinguish between the degree of access for different types of weapons, such as automatic rifles, and to do so without "infringing" on the right of the militia to have those weapons. They can infringe on the individual's right to bear arms so long as they do not infringe on the rights of the collective to have those arms available just in case. An additional regulatory measure would be to require membership in the militia so that use of the more dangerous weapons can be trained.
A "well regulated militia" is not free range, unregulated gun possession. The "right to keep and bear arms" has been protected for the well-regulated militia, not the individual. Wise state governments choose to assert minimal control over guns with the lowest degree of kill-power, such as hand guns and hunting rifles for instance, while keeping automatic weapons in the National Guard armory where trained citizens gain access to stay ready to resist oppression with arms if need be.
Learn more about this author, Michael Burgwin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
Remembering that the question is not whether gun control laws are good or bad, effective or ineffective and so on, the question is whether gun control laws infringe on the rights as stated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution.
Assumin g the question refers to Federal Gun Control Laws, my answer is yes.
It is really a cut and dried issue that a thorough reading of our Constitution, which by the way is written in plain English, will satisfy.
Let's look at two of the more important of the ten Amendments which make up our Bill of Rights:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
The above prohibits Congress from passing legislation respecting, religion, abridging free speech or the right of the people to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances. Pretty powerful stuff right?
"Amendment II
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."
Note a couple of things: First, this issue is so important to the drafters they set it aside and address it by itself. Second, note that Congress is prohibited from interfering with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment absolutely forbids anyone in Federal Power from infringing on the right of the people to keep (own) or bare (carry) arms.
You say that is a pretty radical interpretation. I say you're right, but I am interpreting a pretty radical document written by a buncha radical guys. They had just finished an armed revolution in which they all believed an armed citizenry had been the instrument of their success. They were forming a new government that none of them entirely trusted. They wanted to make certain that, in the most exigent circumstances, that armed citizenry would still be out there to be called upon.
So I say that, unless it fall legitimately under the Federal government's authority to regulate interstate trade, the Federal government has no authority to in act gun control laws under the Constitution as written.
That leaves two recourses: either place the control of firearms in state hands where I believe it belongs at present or amend the Constitution to reflect present thought.
Or, we could just do what we have been doing and ignore the simple truth. If we decide that's OK we might want to remember the law of unintended consequences.
Remembe r I showed you the 1st and 2nd Amendment to the Constitution for comparison? If the Federal Authorities are allowed; by the use of contorted logic, half truth and incremental action, to chip away at a citizen's right to keep and bare arms then what is going to stop them from doing the same thing to a citizen's right to free speech, to be secure in their person and property, to not be compelled to testify against themselves and so on?
I used to make the above argument and get laughed at by my less radical friends, after the passage of the Patriot Act many of them quit laughing.
Oh, there is one other thing, as a soldier and cop in retirement I have chosen to exercise my right to neither keep or bare arms. There is not a firearm in my house.
Learn more about this author, Edward Hall.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Government & Policies
- Should former government employees be allowed to work for companies they used to regulate?
- Should employees of government contractors have the same whistleblower protections as federal employees?
- Should Congressional Research reports be available to the public for free?
- Is the Constitution always right?
- Should photography, live video and audio coverage be allowed in the Supreme Court and in federal district and appellate courtrooms?
- Does the resale of Coast Guard Marine cutters by faith-based groups signal a problem for faith-based initiatives?
