Do you want a solution to gun ownership?

[liberty]

It doesn’t matter what some individual testified to what matter is what the constitution says and the Second Amendment says the people. You can’t interpret it any other way unless you are a fascist.

The state could require gun owners to maintain a membership in an organized and well-regulated militia in order to possess weapons. But they can’t deny membership to any qualified citizen. And if they chose not to regulate that does not affect the right of the people to own and keep arms. The second amendment says well-regulated militia not well regulated arms.

[RayThom]

The NRA has an interesting history. It was started after the American civil war in an effort to improve civilian marksmanship. Many 'experts found that most infantryman were lousy shots. So the idea was to use government surplus firearms and encourage civilians to shoot target competitions with them. It was completely in line with the view that the second amendment is about equipment for militia... Or details of the modifications to the basic holding technique used in winning the three position .22 rimfire competition.

Yep, this brings back mostly fond memories. During the warm months, and as a Junior NRA member, I was at the outdoor gun range in Havertown PA every other Saturday honing my skills for the regional small bore rifle competition with my trusty "Winchester Model 69A .22 S, L, LR Bolt Action Target Rifle with 25" Barrel & Leather Sling, and requisite Lyman 77 Sights." Although I was Marksman qualified, I never went on to super-duper, gung-ho, Davy Crockett-like enthusiasm. I almost felt like an outcast.

Nonetheless, after years at different Junior levels I chose not to opt for Senior membership. Early on I became disenchanted with the constant barrage of "guns, guns, guns" that seemed so ingrained in the Senior membership. And not long after, I was actually talking people out of joining due to its heavy, pro-militia, creed. Way too extreme for me.

Looking back, I feel Karl Frederick was most nearly correct. The NRA has lost its way.

[Big RR]

While it might be overturned or distinguished based on specific facts, since Heller (2008) the Supreme Court has ruled that the second amendment applies to individual gun ownership unconnected to any formal militia, so this would matter as well.

[Bicycle Bill]

It doesn’t matter what some individual testified to what matter is what the constitution says and the Second Amendment says the people. You can’t interpret it any other way unless you are a fascist.

The state could require gun owners to maintain a membership in an organized and well-regulated militia in order to possess weapons. But they can’t deny membership to any qualified citizen. And if they chose not to regulate that does not affect the right of the people to own and keep arms. The second amendment says well-regulated militia not well regulated arms.

I just find it odd that we require doctors, dentists, airplane pilots, automobile drivers, motorcyclists, plumbers, realtors, bartenders, and even couples who want to get married — just to list a few groups — to be licensed before they are allowed to do their thing, but pretty much any asshole (provided he doesn't pop up as a felon in a very weak, almost non-existent "nod-nod, wink-wink" background check) can walk in, buy, and use a firearm.
I also find it ironic that we will register or license all sorts of inanimate objects such as cars, bars, boats, bicycles, charitable organizations, restaurants, marijuana dispensaries, and even lotteries and raffles — but not a gun.

-"BB"-

[Burning Petard]

All those items and professions you mention BB, can be distinguished by their absence from any mention in the constitution. About 'arms' the constitution has that tricky little phrase, used nowhere else, 'shall not be infringed.' Permits, regulation, restrictions all slice this right into fringe.


Clearly this irrational. The only way the second amendment can be taken as is, without challenge, is to believe the amendment is some kind of natural law, like the third law of motion, or some kind of divine commandment, imposed on the universe by its creator.

snailgate

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with Sue, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment!

[Joe Guy]

The civilian militia being anyone ( civilian ) willing to defend the country in time of emergency provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen of the US with no serious mental or personality defects.

That wouldn't be too much different than it is now. All a person would need to do to buy a gun is agree to defend the country. But I would like to know who would determine who has "personality defect" and the methodology to be used. Would it need to be done by a court or a new governmental 'Personality Evaluation Dept'? Would there be a registry of people with defective personalities and would that be available to the public?

[Burning Petard]

Yes, the devil is always in the details. There was an effort late in the previous presidency to apply the rules for Social Security. That is, if an individual is declared incompetent legally, to manage their own social security checks directly, they would also be ineligible to purchase a firearm. There was a big kerfluffle over that with the NRA cheerleaders declaring just because a person can't be trusted handle their own finances, that don't mean they cannot manage use and ownership of a firearm responsibly. Just look at all the wonderful gun owners and voters who have fallen for various con artists.

So of course there is no connection between the social security data base and the computer searches that are used when you buy a gun from a dealer.

snailgate

[Jarlaxle]

I agree with Sue, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment!

You get right on that, then.

[dales]

Interesting that some people who view themselves as "liberals" are so quick to want to take constitutional rights away.

[Long Run]

[BoSoxGal]

A couple of decades ago I had an aunt and uncle who cultivated an enormous vegetable garden every summer - it got so we relatives would hide and pretend to be out when they pulled in for unscheduled visits, but it didn't matter because they would just leave the bags of zucchinis they were bearing on the porch and drive away.

I like a good zucchini bread or a sautéed zucchini & yellow squash medley or zucchini lasagna or stuffed zucchini or baked zucchini as much as the next person . . . but there were times back then when I felt like shooting a bunch of zucchini myself!

[liberty]

I agree with Sue, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment!

You want to make criminals out of millions of people who otherwise would not break the law. Do you think the problem is the people who only want to be able to protect themselves? Your harasser in Montana did not need a gun to deal with you; all he needed to do was pick his time and place and he could have done it with his fist or a sap. After you were unconscious he could have moved you to a remote location and took his time punishing you. So why do you want to empower the rapist and the home invader?

[liberty]

The civilian militia being anyone ( civilian ) willing to defend the country in time of emergency provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen of the US with no serious mental or personality defects.

That wouldn't be too much different than it is now. All a person would need to do to buy a gun is agree to defend the country. But I would like to know who would determine who has "personality defect" and the methodology to be used. Would it need to be done by a court or a new governmental 'Personality Evaluation Dept'? Would there be a registry of people with defective personalities and would that be available to the public?

A psychiatrist or psychologists would do an evaluation and submit a report. The individual would pay for it at a fee set by the state. Of course there would be no guarantees; such things can’t be guaranteed, but obvious defects would be detected. And members of his militia unit would have a motivation to report anything odd they saw. They would want to avoid having one of their members bring disgrace on the group.

[Lord Jim]

A psychiatrist or psychologists would do an evaluation and submit a report. The individual would pay for it at a fee set by the state.

Would you require this for every single person who wants to own a firearm?

If so, you're proposing something far more invasive and onerous than registration laws. (I imagine many Second Amendment opponents would be more than happy to embrace this proposal.)

If not, what criteria would you use that would trigger this requirement?

[BoSoxGal]

I agree with Sue, we should repeal the 2nd Amendment!

You want to make criminals out of millions of people who otherwise would not break the law. Do you think the problem is the people who only want to be able to protect themselves? Your harasser in Montana did not need a gun to deal with you; all he needed to do was pick his time and place and he could have done it with his fist or a sap. After you were unconscious he could have moved you to a remote location and took his time punishing you. So why do you want to empower the rapist and the home invader?

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would not necessarily criminalize all gun owners, it would merely allow for rational gun control laws without the current insanity.

Thanks for that PTSD-triggering nightmare hypothetical about my stalker; please reconsider raising that topic in such a way in future - there is no horrific scenario you could imagine that hasn't already haunted my thoughts, and I've worked hard to feel safe again since putting 2000+ miles between me & him.

[Jarlaxle]

The civilian militia being anyone ( civilian ) willing to defend the country in time of emergency provided the individual has no criminal record and is a mentally competent adult citizen of the US with no serious mental or personality defects.

That wouldn't be too much different than it is now. All a person would need to do to buy a gun is agree to defend the country. But I would like to know who would determine who has "personality defect" and the methodology to be used. Would it need to be done by a court or a new governmental 'Personality Evaluation Dept'? Would there be a registry of people with defective personalities and would that be available to the public?

A psychiatrist or psychologists would do an evaluation and submit a report. The individual would pay for it at a fee set by the state. Of course there would be no guarantees; such things can’t be guaranteed, but obvious defects would be detected. And members of his militia unit would have a motivation to report anything odd they saw. They would want to avoid having one of their members bring disgrace on the group.

Which would, of course, become a back-door ban...because no psychologist would EVER sign off on that! Way too much liability for him...much easier to just not do the evaluation.

[liberty]

A psychiatrist or psychologists would do an evaluation and submit a report. The individual would pay for it at a fee set by the state.

Would you require this for every single person who wants to own a firearm?

If so, you're proposing something far more invasive and onerous than registration laws. (I imagine many Second Amendment opponents would be more than happy to embrace this proposal.)

If not, what criteria would you use that would trigger this requirement?

Yes, everyone, but only once in a lifetime when joining the militia if it was ever need any more than that the state would pay for it. Out of a sense of fairness even cops would have to do it. Well, I reckon a cop could work without belonging to the militia, but he would have to have keep his weapon at the station when off duty. There is no difference between a police officer and any other citizen except he has a dangerous job. The same would apply to armed guards.

And there would need to be a shield law to protect mental health professionals who do the evaluations in the same way a judge is shielding from liability for doing his duty. But that would not protect him from action by a professional review board or protect his reputation.

[rubato]

A psychiatrist or psychologists would do an evaluation and submit a report. The individual would pay for it at a fee set by the state.

Would you require this for every single person who wants to own a firearm?

If so, you're proposing something far more invasive and onerous than registration laws. (I imagine many Second Amendment opponents would be more than happy to embrace this proposal.)

If not, what criteria would you use that would trigger this requirement?

Yes, everyone, but only once in a lifetime when joining the militia if it was ever need any more than that the state would pay for it. Out of a sense of fairness even cops would have to do it. Well, I reckon a cop could work without belonging to the militia, but he would have to have keep his weapon at the station when off duty. There is no difference between a police officer and any other citizen except he has a dangerous job. The same would apply to armed guards.

And there would need to be a shield law to protect mental health professionals who do the evaluations in the same way a judge is shielding from liability for doing his duty. But that would not protect him from action by a professional review board or protect his reputation.

Once in a lifetime? But many people's mental status changes, they have strokes, join racist organizations, &c. It would have to be every ten years or so.

yrs,
rubato