The Second Amendment

William · Oct 21, 2013

The Second Amendment pops up as a topic of discussion from time to time so I thought I'd post this here. It's from one of my favorite blogs, The Volokh Conspiracy. It gives a "one-stop shop" to anyone looking for any legal issues relating to the Second Amendment.

Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.

This bit here is pretty interesting:

The U.S. Supreme Court has said little about the Second Amendment, but it has certainly not said that the Amendment secures only a collective right.

Throughout the Court's history, the Justices have mentioned the Second Amendment, usually in passing, in 27 opinions. In 22 of these 27, the Justices quoted or paraphrased only "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" language, without even mentioning the Militia Clause. 15
One of the remaining five cases -- and the only extended 20th-century discussion of the right -- is United States v. Miller (1939), which held that the right extended only to weapons that were rationally related to the preservation of the militia. 16 But the Court emphatically did not hold that the right belonged only to the state or the National Guard. Rather, it reaffirmed that the "militia" referred to the entire armed citizenry, and considered on the merits a lawsuit that was brought by an individual (Miller), not by a state.

Allow me to translate. Those nasty "assault weapons" that some politicians think reasonable people should agree to ban are actually protected by the Second Amendment. It ain't for duck huntin' folks.

Polydectes · Oct 21, 2013

William said:
The Second Amendment pops up as a topic of discussion from time to time so I thought I'd post this here. It's from one of my favorite blogs, The Volokh Conspiracy. It gives a "one-stop shop" to anyone looking for any legal issues relating to the Second Amendment.

Testimony of Eugene Volokh on the Second Amendment, Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Sept. 23, 1998.

This bit here is pretty interesting:

Allow me to translate. Those nasty "assault weapons" that some politicians think reasonable people should agree to ban are actually protected by the Second Amendment. It ain't for duck huntin' folks.

I don't get the desire to ban them. They are just rifles. Just like any other. Firing pin trigger barrel magazine cartage and ammo. They could be and ate often used for hunting.because they are exactly like hunting rifles.

William · Oct 22, 2013

I don't get that either, I really think that the only reason the "assault rifles" are a target is because of they way they look. If do-gooders really wanted to get a handle on gun violence they'd be trying to ban the .38 revolver and the 9mm pistol. They'd never succeed but that's what they'd try to do.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
I don't get that either, I really think that the only reason the "assault rifles" are a target is because of they way they look. If do-gooders really wanted to get a handle on gun violence they'd be trying to ban the .38 revolver and the 9mm pistol. They'd never succeed but that's what they'd try to do.

Or even better solve the problem which is of course much more complicated and less sensational than an impossible gun ban.

William · Oct 22, 2013

Polydectes said:
Or even better solve the problem which is of course much more complicated and less sensational than an impossible gun ban.

I don't know how complicated this actually would be. Let the potheads and non-violent drug offenders out of prison and throw the gang bangers in there in their place. Stop counting suicides in the gun violence statistics and viola...America doesn't have a gun violence problem anymore.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
I don't know how complicated this actually would be. Let the potheads and non-violent drug offenders out of prison and throw the gang bangers in there in their place. Stop counting suicides in the gun violence statistics and viola...America doesn't have a gun violence problem anymore.

Locking people up after there fact doesn't really solve the problem. It simply punishes the offender. I was thinking examine why they become an offender in the first place.

William · Oct 22, 2013

I think taking gang bangers off of the street solves one hell of a lot of problems

but that's just me.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
I think taking gang bangers off of the street solves one hell of a lot of problems

but that's just me.

Okay, what do you lock them up for? Is it an automatic life sentence? If so how do you get a jury to convict? How do you tell a banger from a wanna be? Do you just go door to door rounding them up?

Its simple to say lock them all up but there is an entire justice system they have to go through. They have to be charged with a crime, and last I understood it isn't illegal to look like a gangster.

Its not as simple as locking them up.

William · Oct 22, 2013

Polydectes said:
Okay, what do you lock them up for? Is it an automatic life sentence? If so how do you get a jury to convict? How do you tell a banger from a wanna be? Do you just go door to door rounding them up?

Illegal taxation, racketeering, illegal possession of a firearm, drug possession, intimidation, trafficking of various things. You're right, it's not like we can just snap our fingers and lock all of them up for life but we can harass them to the point that it may not be worth it to them and we can definitely lock many of them up for a very long time if we put the same effort into doing so that we put into reading people's emails or slamming suburban youth into the probation system for MIP.

Definitely labor intensive but not at all complicated.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
Illegal taxation, racketeering, illegal possession of a firearm, drug possession, intimidation, trafficking of various things. You're right, it's not like we can just snap our fingers and lock all of them up for life but we can harass them to the point that it may not be worth it to them and we can definitely lock many of them up for a very long time if we put the same effort into doing so that we put into reading people's emails or slamming suburban youth into the probation system for MIP.

Definitely labor intensive but not at all complicated.

Who would do this harassing? The police? Sorry we dint have the man power. As long as there is money to be made in trafficking controlled substances they will be in business.

Its computers and clerks that "read emails" and blah blah blah.

I disagree about the youth probation business. That is about the only time the system can really solve a problem. Locking people up is really just dealing with it. But getting though to a kid that still has a chance to change his ways before his ways change him that is far far more valuable. That is an actual solution.

William · Oct 22, 2013

Polydectes said:
Who would do this harassing? The police? Sorry we dint have the man power. As long as there is money to be made in trafficking controlled substances they will be in business.

I think the manpower issue is a good point if you're only going to use the police. I also think a better way to start this whole thing would be to legalize drugs which would address your concerns about the profits being earned...that would introduce a new set of problems though.

Polydectes said:
Its computers and clerks that "read emails" and blah blah blah.

Its money and resources which make things happen, how resources are recruited and deployed can be changed.

Polydectes said:
I disagree about the youth probation business. That is about the only time the system can really solve a problem. Locking people up is really just dealing with it. But getting though to a kid that still has a chance to change his ways before his ways change him that is far far more valuable. That is an actual solution.

In theory I agree with you. It's become obvious though, at least where I live, that the probation system is seen as a revenue stream and the punishments and repercussions the probationers face in many cases far exceed the seriousness of the offenses, at least in my opinion they do.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
I think the manpower issue is a good point if you're only going to use the police. I also think a better way to start this whole thing would be to legalize drugs which would address your concerns about the profits being earned...that would introduce a new set of problems though.

I think legalization of marajuana would be enough. Most cartels big income is from pot.

Its money and resources which make things happen, how resources are recruited and deployed can be changed.

What you think an automated system can do this "harassing" of "gang bangers"?

In theory I agree with you. It's become obvious though, at least where I live, that the probation system is seen as a revenue stream and the punishments and repercussions the probationers face in many cases far exceed the seriousness of the offenses, at least in my opinion they do.

The system is flawed, it really needs to be redesigned but not scrapped all together.

David · Oct 22, 2013

They kept slavery legal for convicts, maybe we should take advantage of that fact...

William · Oct 22, 2013

Polydectes said:
What you think an automated system can do this "harassing" of "gang bangers"?

I don't think an automated system can do anything. My point was if computers can be purchased and the people to use them can be hired than other tools and employees can be hired to perform other functions if the need for them is recognized.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
I don't think an automated system can do anything. My point was if computers can be purchased and the people to use them can be hired than other tools and employees can be hired to perform other functions if the need for them is recognized.

So what do we do to harass gang bangers?

William · Oct 22, 2013

Polydectes said:
So what do we do to harass gang bangers?

What we should do and what I would do are two very different things. As for what we should do I think we should do what the LAPD is doing right now except on a larger scale. For example, if the LAPD sees five guys in a car, all wearing the same color, they pull the car over and search. With 5 gang bangers in a car you will find something which justifies taking them in. Keep doing it until people start to have good reasons to turn on each other which is what's been happening in LA, if you believe the LAPD but the gang crime stats are down in that area over the last 10 years.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
What we should do and what I would do are two very different things. As for what we should do I think we should do what the LAPD is doing right now except on a larger scale. For example, if the LAPD sees five guys in a car, all wearing the same color, they pull the car over and search. With 5 gang bangers in a car you will find something which justifies taking them in. Keep doing it until people start to have good reasons to turn on each other which is what's been happening in LA, if you believe the LAPD but the gang crime stats are down in that area over the last 10 years.

Or they wear different colors. Here in my area we have a problem with gangs, many of them don't have tattoos and identifying colors or the ones you really want. Believe it or not they have gotten wiser.

William · Oct 22, 2013

We don't need to get all of them at once and sooner or later they make themselves known. It can be done unless we find reasons not to...then we keep the status-quo.

I personally believe that racketeering is the best way to get them because it casts a much wider net than individual crimes but I think the feds have to bring those cases (I'm not sure on this) but the local cops can cultivate leads which lead to the feds taking action.

Here's the deal: we have a small, criminal subset of our society which is not only responsible for a sizable chunk of our gun violence but their presence in this country in my opinion is a legitimate national security concern.

Polydectes · Oct 22, 2013

William said:
We don't need to get all of them at once and sooner or later they make themselves known. It can be done unless we find reasons not to...then we keep the status-quo.

I personally believe that racketeering is the best way to get them because it casts a much wider net than individual crimes but I think the feds have to bring those cases (I'm not sure on this) but the local cops can cultivate leads which lead to the feds taking action.

Here's the deal: we have a small, criminal subset of our society which is not only responsible for a sizable chunk of our gun violence but their presence in this country in my opinion is a legitimate national security concern.

Federal police are extremely limited in my state they aren't even considered police. Local police are far meter funded and better at gathering intelligence being that they typically live in the community. State police where not as well funded have better resources than federals.

William · Oct 22, 2013

I'm not saying that we should have a bunch of uniformed federal police/agents running around our country. The feds should stick to what they do well, build cases and share or disseminate information. I agree with you on local police knowing their own city better than outsiders.

We have plenty of unemployed people in this country right now and I'm sure some of them would be suited to police work above and beyond sitting in speed traps or busting high school parties.

The Second Amendment

Similar threads