General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsanother legal question. Why is operating a motor vehicle a privilege and operating a gun a right?
I am being serious.
what is the legal basis? Is it because - cars have to be operated on shared space such as roads - while guns are used to defend the property you own? ( stand your ground - dilutes the difference even more ).
LibAsHell
(180 posts)I have no doubt it was not intended to be interpreted the way it is today by so many (dumb) people, but because it's not explicitly clear, it's going to continue to be brought up.
srican69
(1,426 posts)I am beginning to have doubts .....
jmg257
(11,996 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)yellowcanine
(35,690 posts)Seriously, the short answer to your question is that modes of conveyance are not mentioned in the Constitution, guns are. But I do not believe the framers of the Constitution ever intended to ban the right of Congress to regulate guns. They just meant to guarantee the right of gun ownership. It is not the same thing, even though the NRA would like us to think that it is. I think Madison and Jefferson would be appalled at how the 2nd Amendment is being interpreted.
SugarShack
(1,635 posts)DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)at least as it has been interpreted. It is certainly debatable whether the 2nd Amendment ever was intended to convey an individual right, and even if it was, whether it necessarily needs to be interpreted that way now. Certainly the language is convoluted enough to give all points of view a decent argument.
byeya
(2,842 posts)Kennedy and Roberts then believe away. The next Supreme Court nominee could very well cast the vote in a 5 - 4 decision that takes the legal precedent back to the 200+ years of case law.
yellowcanine
(35,690 posts)Which is essentially the position of the NRA and the other gun rights groups. The assault weapons ban was not overturned by the SCOTUS, it expired for lack of political will to renew it.
DefenseLawyer
(11,101 posts)Even for a strict constructionist, it says "keep and bear" not "buy and sell". The idea that regulation of gun sales doesn't constitute commerce is ludicrous.
jody
(26,624 posts)that job and firearms are the most effective, efficient tools for it.
PA (1776) and VT (1777) in their constitutions declared rights.
The following is for PA, VT used the same except for substituting "unalienable" for "inalienable".
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
SCOTUS said it pre3existed our Constitution and does not depend upon words on paper.
LP2K12
(885 posts)with my and others owning/operating a gun being a privledge. However, many just want to do away with all firearms.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)And a right to own property (English common law, also protected by the ninth, fourth, and fifth).
We don't have a specific right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
You have a right to drive a car in your back field until the wheels fall off. Lots of "farm vehicles" are driven by teenagers without licenses or insurance, or heck even registration.
It's when you get out onto public roads that you turn from a right to a privilege.
eta: hit submit instead of preview..
As far as guns, the right to arms pre-dates the constitution, but having an explicit protection helps.
From US v Cruikshank (1876)-
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."
Obviously, the line about Congress isn't true anymore in light of the 14th amendment and the doctrine of 'select incorporation', but the core stands.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)The state has a lot of say in how you use cars because they are almost entirely used on public roads. And, for that matter, the state has a lot to say about carrying and using guns in public places.
byeya
(2,842 posts)the Supreme Court held that individuals had the right to own firearms - It was the first time the Supreme Court so held.
Should Obama get the chance to replace one of the FF, then the Constitution will no longer say the 2nd Amendment gives the right to own a firearm.
Don't believe the incessant lies of the rightwingers and gunsuckers.
jody
(26,624 posts)an individual right.
Their statements however meant that RKBA is an unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment.
srican69
(1,426 posts)me understand your response
jody
(26,624 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)it took me 4 damn years of my life to earn it ....
jody
(26,624 posts)srican69
(1,426 posts)as I know what it takes to get one.
byeya
(2,842 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)For many decades it has been seen by judges, lawyers, and scholars are concerning a collective right.
Only NRA-bots and repigs think the opposite.
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm
jody
(26,624 posts)my opinion you wouldn't understand it even if you were able to read it.
I understand things in my sleep that you couldn't even figure out if you had 10 cans of Red Bull in you.
A reich-wing SCOTUS mis-decision, much like Dred Scott, is something I don't really care about. When more sane judges, with more respect for precedent, get into the SCOTUS Heller will be overturned.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Read http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/SpitzerChicago.htm for more info.
byeya
(2,842 posts)court refused to hear the case thus upholding the law.
It was in effect until after the odious ruling by the 5 justices on the Supreme Court who also stole the election from Al Gore in their Florida intervention.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Totalitarianism, not taxes, was the big cause of the American Revolution. Our Declaration of Indpendance would almost certainly have a line item vis-a-vis the MADDness. Among the Whereas list you would find something along the lines of:
- has constrained the ability of people to prosper by blocking their rights of egress on public byways for the purpose of enriching the insurance industry even to the point of establishing roadblocks for unwarranted searches of travelers accepting money from the insurance industry to pay for the police forces enforcing these illegal roadblocks,
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Of the second and basic HS English and lack of understanding of the social milieu to it
The right to bear arms is dependent on a free state, which is dependent on a well regulated militia.
People who own an infantry weapon should report to military drill once a month.