Reply #188: Accidents/negligence

[PeterBrady]

Actually the vast majority of automobile "accidents" are a result of negligence. Why do you think someone is ticketed and why do you think there are so many lawsuits involving automobile "accidents"?

Driving is a privledge not a right. Firearm ownership is a right guaranteed by the US Constitution. You may argue that the 2nd does not apply to individuls but up until this point in time it does apply to individuals.

Something form the US Supreme Court in one of the few cases that potentially involved the 2nd amendment:

"The significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was composed of ''civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the laws, on a force that ''comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,'' who, ''when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment02/#t4

So the difference between you and me is that I have no problem with regulating privledges but I do have a problem with denying someone their right(s) regardless of the negative consequences. I certainly take no joy in seeing or hearing about an innocent person being killed by gunshot. Just as I take no joy in seeing a child molester let out of jail/prison on a legal technicallity. But I also take no joy in seeing the US Constitution or our rights trampled. So their are times when someones rights are violated and the guilty go free (negative consequence).

Reading the above quote by the USSC clearly shows that at this point in our history handguns are in common use by the military and therefore should be available to individual "civilians" as civilians are clearly named as the "primary" members of the milita.

It is also important to note that the NFA of 1934 was enacted to raise revenue for the US Government and was originally enforced by the Treasury Department. It had nothing to do with "for the common good" of man. It is also important to note that the only case that has been a test of the NFA was originally overturned in the Miller case in US District court. However The US Gov't appealed to the USSC. Since the defendants were poor, their right (our rights) were not represented in the appeal so the USSC decision was based solely on the US Gov'ts arguments.

The Miller case:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=307&invol=174

The important phrase in this decision was, "In the absence of any evidence...". I am hopeful that one day we may have this issue decided once and for all.