Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ballots & Bullets
Which would-be presidents are good on gun rights? Dave Kopel rates the candidates.
|1.23.07 @ 2:27PM|#
I wish Kopel would have given a hint as to his criteria. It seems to me that a "Record of anti-Second Amendment leadership" doesn't really mean much. Since Kopel completely disregards federalism in his analysis, I'll go ahead and disregard his idiotic list. Yeah, Rudy Giuliani was anti-gun, HE WAS THE MAYOR OF NYC, for chrissakes. Does Kopel have a clue as to Rudy's position on guns at the federal level or in Missouri? Of course not, that would require research.
|1.23.07 @ 2:47PM|#
As a white liberal running in a majority African American
district, Tennessee Democrat Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge
on the campaign trail last year: If elected, he would seek to
become the first white member of the Congressional Black
Caucus.
Now that he's a freshman in Congress, Cohen has changed his plans.
He said he has dropped his bid after several current and former
caucus members made it clear to him that whites need not
apply.
"I think they're real happy I'm not going to join," said Cohen, who
succeeded Rep. Harold Ford, D-Tenn., in the Memphis district. "It's
their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way
in. You need to be invited."
Cohen said he became convinced that joining the caucus would be "a
social faux pas" after seeing news reports that former Rep. William
Lacy Clay Sr., D-Mo., a co-founder of the caucus, had circulated a
memo telling members it was "critical" that the group remain
"exclusively African-American."
Other members, including the new chairwoman, Rep. Carolyn Cheeks
Kilpatrick, D-Mich., and Clay's son, Rep. William Lacy Clay, D-Mo.,
agreed.
"Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. ... It's
time to move on," the younger Clay said. "It's an unwritten rule.
It's understood. It's clear."
The bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for
membership, a House aide said, but no non-black member has ever
joined.
Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., who is white, tried in 1975 when he was
a sophomore representative and the group was only six years
old.
"Half my Democratic constituents were African American. I felt we
had interests in common as far as helping people in poverty," Stark
said. "They had a vote, and I lost. They said the issue was that I
was white, and they felt it was important that the group be limited
to African Americans."
Cohen remains hopeful, though, that he can forge relationships with
black members in other ways.
"When I saw the reticence, I didn't want anyone to misunderstand my
motives. Politically, it was the right thing to do," he said.
"There are other ways to gain fellowship with people I
respect."
Cohen won his seat in the 60 percent black district as the only
white candidate in a crowded primary field. If he faces a primary
challenge next year from a black candidate, as expected, some Black
Caucus members may work to defeat him.
A similar situation arose in 2004 after redistricting added more
black voters to the Houston district of former Rep. Chris Bell,
D-Texas.
Although House tradition discourages members of the same party from
working against each other, about a dozen black lawmakers
contributed to Bell's opponent, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, the
eventual victor. Even Bell's Houston neighbor, Rep. Sheila Jackson
Lee, D-Texas, campaigned against him.
One black member who criticized his colleagues for sandbagging Bell
was Cohen's predecessor, Harold Ford.
"You have an incumbent, and you don't support an incumbent? It was
inappropriate," Ford told Congressional Quarterly in 2004.
Cohen has won high marks for hiring African Americans. A majority
of his staff is African American, he said, including his chief of
staff.
|1.23.07 @ 2:48PM|#
Lamar,
you did read the part where he asked people to post additional
information/corrections in the comments section right?
I thought Guiuliani was a big wheel in the conference of mayors
which were demanding that the Federal govt enforce/pass more
gun-control laws since people were smuggling the banned weapons
from freer parts of the country (kind of a fugitive slave law in
reverse). In fact, I think he was one of the leaders of the
charge.
Personally anybody who could advance a jloob Bernard Kerik to
any position of responsibility scares me. Kerik played a very
important role in the U.S. losing the war in Iraq.
|1.23.07 @ 3:05PM|#
"you did read the part where he asked people to post
additional information/corrections in the comments section
right?"
Yeah, I posted something there, at your request. Now I feel dirty
for participating in such a poorly researched farce. BTW: I'm not a
Rudy fan, so don't pin that bullshit on me. I'm merely saying that
we don't know his position. If you think his position is the same
as 15 years ago while schmoozing mayors, well, there's a bridge I
have for sale, special price.
Jennifer|1.23.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Stephen I. Cohen made a novel pledge on the campaign trail
last year: If elected, he would seek to become the first white
member of the Congressional Black Caucus.
Sounds like he did indeed "seek" to join the Caucus, though they
didn't let him in.
|1.23.07 @ 3:43PM|#
Wait a minute, bub.
"Mixed: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)(mostly positive record, except
for lead sponsorship of two terrible bills: McCain-Lieberman...and
McCain-Feingold, the campaign speech restriction law which
significantly affects right-to-arms groups"
Using this logic, I could assign McCain a "mixed" record on
campaign finance reform, based on the fact that M-F "significantly
affects" groups that advocate in favor of campaign finance
reform.
That's some serious shoe-horning right there.
|1.23.07 @ 3:45PM|#
Lamar -
"...completely disregards federalism in his analysis...". Why is
the support for the second a federalist issue? Is it for the 1st?
How about the 4th? What if Rudy had advocated "Separate but equal"
as the mayor of a small southern town? Would Kopel be wrong to
bring that up as an indicator of his stance on civil rights? How
about if advocated door to door searches on main street for drugs?
Would that have no bearing on how he would act vis the 4th in a
federal capacity?
I honestly don't get your 'federalism' problem on this issue.
-Karl
|1.23.07 @ 4:05PM|#
Karl: You would agree that regulation of firearms has
traditionally been a subject of state law, correct? If you can't
see a difference between unrestricted guns in NYC as opposed to in
Kansas, then why am I wasting my time? I am pro-gun, but there are
places where guns are incredibly dangerous. Are you not familiar
with the transformation of NYC under Giuliani? Does his experience
in NYC mean that he favors gun restrictions in Eustis, FL? Somehow
I doubt it, and there's where federalism comes in.
All the other rights you listed are not affected by population
density.
Federalism works because we don't have to have some BS,
one-size-fits-all gun law. Therefore, any attempt to assess a
politician's stance on the Second Amendment fails when it omits
discussion of federalism and gun rights.
|1.23.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Lamar - I was not a aware that the Bill of Rights (at least the
2nd) had a population density amendment. Even ignoring the fact
that Guiliani has called for federal control because of the claim
that lax laws in neighboring states were undermining his local
gutting of the Bill of Rights (I believe, feel free to correct that
misconception), you can not pick and choose which parts of the Bill
of Rights are subject to Federalism and which are not. Your
position amounts to "I think New York is better because Guiliani
restricted guns, therefore, I can ignore the 2nd Amendment".
Careful, someone may come up with a very good reason why the 1st
needs to be restricted in certain locales and you will not have a
leg to object on.
I guess my basic question is why must we discuss federalism in the
context of the 2nd, but not the others? Or does it all come down to
you think there are mitigating factors that allow the restriction
of firearms under the auspices of federalism, but not other aspects
of the Bill of Rights? Or do would you have no problem with
applying the same reasoning to the 1st Amendment?
-K
|1.23.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Lamar,
Population as a factor? How is NYC different than D.C.? Well, let's
see, DC only has a population of 500k people and hand guns are
completely illegal, yet it ranked 13th
highest in terms of murders for the U.S. in 2005 yet cities
with larger populations and far more liberal gun laws ranked lower
on the list (Miami(58),LA(76),Las Vegas(92)) and NYC didn't even
make it into the top 100 despite Bloomberg having the riens for the
previous four years.
As for Federalism, the 2nd guarantees that the RTKBA shall not be
abridged and the 10th amendment makes it applicable to the entire
nation. Sorry but your Federalism argument is bunk. If Guliani
wouldn't abide by the Constituion as governor, I sure as hell doubt
he will do it as Prez.
|1.23.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Karl: You were not aware that the Second
Amendment had a population density requirement? I would say it
falls within the "well regulated" language of the amendment and the
"well regulated" language is why Giuliani didn't really "gut" the
Bill of Rights (he gutted the BoR on many issues, but guns I think
he did OK). So, what constitutes "well-regulated"? I don't know for
sure, but I know that a federal, one-size fits all isn't
appropriate. As to the other amendments, none of them say that the
rights they protect or people exercising them should be "well
regulated."
Kwix: How is NYC different than DC? First, you
answered your own question. DC is a podunk little hamlet compared
to NYC (500,000 people? How quaint!). Second, it really doesn't
matter the similarities because gun control could work in one town
and not in another, even statistically identical cities. My whole
point is that local communities should decide what works for them,
not the US Congress. The only thing communities can't do is ban
guns, and NYC hasn't done that. But I refer you to the "well
regulated" language. It isn't mere surplusage.
|1.23.07 @ 5:27PM|#
Lamar - What constitutes well regulated? "Well regulated" !=
"Controlled by the Mayor of NYC". In the language of the day "Well
regulated" == "Well trained".
-K
|1.23.07 @ 5:36PM|#
Karl,
I honestly don't know what "well regulated" means. If it means
"well trained" then we have a problem with training people to use
guns and any issue with training lends more importance to the
militia aspect of the amendment. I'm not in favor of giving more
importance to the militia business. What does "well trained" mean?
(Too bad it doesn't mean "well aimed") I think gun rights for all
will be preserved if we leave regulations up to the locals, with
assurances that guns will not be regulated out of existence. I know
you are pro-gun across the board, and I'd rather have people like
you around than anti-gun people, but I also give credit to Rudy G.
for cleaning up the place, and gun laws were a part of that.
Gilbert Martin|1.23.07 @ 5:52PM|#
"well regulated" only applies to people in the militia - as per
the dependent clause of that sentence that comprises the 2nd
Amendment. But the right to keep and bear arms is "of the people"
as per the independent clause of the sentence.
And, by defintion, nothing in an independent clause is dependent on
anything in a dependent clause.
|1.23.07 @ 5:53PM|#
"Does his experience in NYC mean that he favors gun
restrictions in Eustis, FL? Somehow I doubt it, and there's where
federalism comes in."
Lamar, if Rudy truly believes that gun control should be a
state-level issue, please post links to his statements asking that
the Gun Control Act of 1968 and National Firearms Act of 1934 be
repealed.
Surely he has also called for defunding the section of the BATFE
that is in charge of prosecuting federal "gun crimes" as well.
|1.23.07 @ 6:52PM|#
'"well regulated" only applies to people in the militia'
The militia is the people, armed. Otherwise, there would be no
connection between having a "well regulated militia" and allowing
the people to keep and bear arms.
It's an odd amendment. What other entry in the Bill of Rights
contains a justification for why that right exists? What other
amendment gives with one hand and takes away with the other?
|1.23.07 @ 7:47PM|#
What other amendment states openly that the right it protects is
subject to regulation, right in the same sentence that grants the
right?
We don't read, "Well-regulated discourse over political matters
being necessary to a free society, freedom of speech shall not be
abridged."
We don't read, "The well-regulated disposition of military
personnel in private homes being necessary for the maintenance of a
free nation,..."
But in the 2nd, the language of the amendment itself - and not only
the backstory, but the amendment itself - states that the
regulation of the bearing of arms is not only consistent with the
right to bear arms, but the very reason why that right was included
in the Bill of Rights.
None of the other amendments are nearly so wishy-washy.
|1.23.07 @ 7:54PM|#
An enduring principle of Constitutional Law is the doctrine that
there are no wasted words in the Bill of Rights. Every word adds
meaning.
The fact that this amendment, uniquely, includes a description of
its ultimate purpose - a purpose which includes the formulation of
the armed public as a well regulated entity - has some meaning. The
amendment as written means something different than if it simply
read, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Joe Madison|1.23.07 @ 8:16PM|#
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, provided that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Jennifer|1.23.07 @ 8:25PM|#
I took the word "militia" to mean "army." In other words, "Since we'll need to maintain an army to keep the peace, we'll make sure the people are allowed to have weapons, too." We have to have an army, but that can certainly be abused so let's make sure they are not the ONLY ones allowed to have weapons.
|1.23.07 @ 8:30PM|#
Jennifer,
The militia was not meant to be a counterweight to the army, but to
replace it. The founders abhored standing armies, and thought that
replacing it with a citizen's militia would provide all of the
military force we needed.
They turned out to be wrong about that, as the militias were routed
in the War of 1812, and we went back to having a real army after
that.
|1.23.07 @ 8:32PM|#
Lamar,
Is there any reason to conclude that the word regulate means
something different in "well-regulated militia" than it does in
"regulate commerce between the states?"
Jennifer|1.23.07 @ 8:40PM|#
Joe, why do you think the founders then spoke of the right of the "people" to bear arms, rather than the right of the "militia?"
|1.23.07 @ 8:42PM|#
Joe Madison, if there was a meaning you meant to convery with
your paraphrase of my paraphrase, I must admit that it went over my
head.
I assume you aren't arguing that since we no longer need a militia
for the security of our state, we no longer enjoy the right to keep
and bear arms.
|1.23.07 @ 8:49PM|#
Jennifer,
Perhaps because it would be redundant to talk about the militia
bearing arms? The People + Arms = the Militia. Saying the people
have the right to bear arms is saying they have the right to
constitute a militia.
|1.23.07 @ 8:52PM|#
Well, it means other things, too - the people can individually
bear arms, and thereby do things that have nothing to do with being
in a militia.
It also makes it clear - well, as clear as anything related to this
poorly-written legalese can be - that the militia cannot just be
the chosen few deputized by the government (that would be a
standing army), but has to be constitued by the People as a
whole.
|1.23.07 @ 8:53PM|#
joe,
"What other amendment states openly that the right it protects is
subject to regulation, right in the same sentence that grants the
right?"
But, as you stated in your next two examples, it does not in fact
regulate the right, but rather the outcome that is desired. The
right to bear arms is not regulated, a well-regulated militia is
necessary.
Single Issue Voter|1.23.07 @ 8:58PM|#
How are the candidates (other than anti-freedom Richardson and
McCain) on cockfighting?
I'm serious. I have decided to make this my "single issue".
I would expect anyone who supports legal cockfighting would also
agree with my position
on the Second Amendment as well as other libertarian issues.
perilisk|1.23.07 @ 9:53PM|#
Re: Federalism
While Giuliani's support for gun control in urban settings may not
indicate support for national gun control, he is still likely to
draw on his personal experience when dealing with these issues, and
his personal experience is as the mayor of a large NE metropolis.
Moreover, insofar as he will likely retain a great deal of loyalty
to said metropolis, and as "freer parts of the nation" undermine
the attempts of pro-gun-control states to protect their citizens
(in their eyes) by ensuring that any New Yorker with a car can
become a gun smuggler (if for nothing other than personal use), he
will probably be sympathetic with the imposition of a national
standard.
Re Militias:
I do believe that the right to protect one's life from immediate
violence can only be supplemented by society, not delegated away
(any more than you can sell yourself into slavery). To allow
otherwise is to cut at the foundation of freedom, as revolutionary
violence, while ideally never used and often good for no one, still
remains the people's "mutually assured destruction" option against
a repressive government.
At the same time, actively asserting one's right to life through
lethal violence (i.e., blowing someone away) causes issues for
one's community -- police investigations, potential legal action
etc. Insofar as using violence to protect people's rights is a
police function, I think that gun owners should at least be held to
the level of professionalism required of police officers (from
reading Balko's blog, it would seem this isn't nearly as harsh a
demand as it might seem in an ideal world).
I also wouldn't be opposed to requiring them to join an emergency
civilian police force (a "militia" of sorts, but geared toward
individual protection, not miltiary defense). Moreover, I think
it's in the interests of gun rights activists to do so -- I hear
very few gun control actvists going full Brit and demanding that we
disarm the police or military (which is somewhat odd given how many
of them regard cops and soldiers as fascists intent on perpetrating
unjust violence without fear of punishment or retailiation). When
you, a non gun owner, can rely on your gun owning neighbors to
protect you from violence and crime (while acting as professionally
as the fuzz), you suddenly have an indirect stake in gun rights/gun
control legistation. This particularly holds in communities where
the "real police" are themselves either highly unprofessional,
corrupt, bigoted against the communities they police, or simply
unwilling or unable to get involved in crimes in progress until
well after the fact.
Re "regulation":
From the Online Etymology Dictionary: "In U.S. history, applied to
local posses that kept order (or disturbed it) in rural regions
c.1767-71."
Same source, for regular: "1387, from O.Fr. reguler, from L.L.
regularis "continuing rules for guidance," from L. regula "rule,"
from PIE *reg- "move in a straight line"
Same source, for militia: "Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct
from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from
Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law
amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and
drilled or not" (1777)."
I don't think we're talking about a substitute army to do the
bidding of Congress and the president -- such an item would be
throughly out of a place in a set of ten restrictions placed on
Congress, presumably to prevent the colonies from having simply
gained their own king to oppress them. In all likelihood, it was to
reassure the people that they would retain the capacity for violent
revolution should Congress take a turn towards tyranny. I strongly
suspect that to "secure a free state" did not refer to the security
of a particular state, assumed to be free, but rather securing the
ability to live under a free state by retaining the ability to
replace an unfree state with a free one.
That being the case, the option to diminish the capacity for
violent revolution should not be on the table, as it would be as
greatly in the interest of an oppressive government to exercise
such an option as to have the option to suppress the speech of its
critics, throw them in jail without a trial, or deny them the right
to vote.
|1.23.07 @ 10:07PM|#
Is there any reason to conclude that the word regulate means
something different in "well-regulated militia" than it does in
"regulate commerce between the states?"
Aside from the fact that "regulate" today is recognized to have
four different meanings/uses? The two less common uses today are
the ones that may be most appropriate to understanding those two
references: the former to make accurate, and the latter to "put in
good order" (or alternatively, to regulate as to standardize).
Gilbert Martin|1.23.07 @ 10:18PM|#
"well regulated" only applies to the function of an ORGANIZED
militia when it is acting in it's capacity as a militia.
The right "of the people" to keep and bear arms is not to be "well
regulated".
The interpretation that gun ownership is not an individual right
began with 20th century historical revisionists. There is no
question that the founding fathers considered it an individual
right. There are plenty of quotes from them on the subject that
make that abundantly clear. Quotes such as the following from
Samuel Adams at the Massachusetts Constitutional ratification
convention: "The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to
authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or
the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United
States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own
arms."
Sam Adams Drinker and Gun Owne|1.23.07 @ 11:12PM|#
Quotes such as the following from Samuel Adams at the
Massachusetts Constitutional ratification convention
Sam Adams,
brewer and patriot.
wayne|1.24.07 @ 3:07AM|#
Joe,
Since, in your interpretation of the 2nd the whole purpose of the
amendment is to allow for and create a militia that is in fact an
army, does that mean that the people should in fact be armed with
the latest military weapons? Should we be allowed (even encouraged)
to own (egads) assault weapons, and RPGs and surface to air
missiles, and tactical nuclear devices?
wayne|1.24.07 @ 4:22AM|#
One lesson to take from this when writing the next constitution
is to only address one topic at a time, i.e.
2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.
2a. The congress shall ensure a well requlated militia.
|1.24.07 @ 8:56AM|#
Mediageek: I have yet to see a recent quote from Giuliani on the issue. Of course, the GOP controlled the government for years and didn't repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National Firearms Act of 1934. Does this mean that the GOP is anti-Second Amendment?
|1.24.07 @ 9:15AM|#
Gilbert,
I'm not arguing the "group right" interpretation - I actually agree
that the 2nd amendment does protect an individual right. My point
is that the inclusion of the "well-regulated" language makes it
clear that the founders themselves believed that a degree of
regulation could be introduced without infringing on that
right.
wayne, "Since, in your interpretation of the 2nd the whole purpose
of the amendment is to allow for and create a militia..." As I've
just explained, I don't accept your premise.
Gilbert Martin|1.24.07 @ 9:56AM|#
"My point is that the inclusion of the "well-regulated" language
makes it clear that the founders themselves believed that a degree
of regulation could be introduced without infringing on that
right."
No it does not make any such thing clear. As I said "well
regulated" only relates to the functioning of the ORGANIZED militia
when it is acting in it's capacity as a militia. It does NOT apply
to being able to "regulate" the right of the people to keep and
bear arms. As I said before the "well regulated" phrase is in the
dependent clause of the sentence and the right "of the people" is
in the independent clause of the sentence. By definition and
according to the rules of English grammar, nothing in an
independent clause of a sentence is dependent on anything in a
dependent clause of that sentence.
dhex|1.24.07 @ 10:39AM|#
keep in mind that while nyc has some of the oldest gun laws on
record (1911) up until the early 70s kids were still bringing their
rifles on the subway for high school shooting classes and
competitions.
it's a strange place in this regard.
|1.24.07 @ 11:24AM|#
"Mediageek: I have yet to see a recent quote from Giuliani
on the issue. Of course, the GOP controlled the government for
years and didn't repeal the Gun Control Act of 1968 or the National
Firearms Act of 1934. Does this mean that the GOP is anti-Second
Amendment?"
Nice attempt at distraction, but the Republicans haven't been
making noises about how gun control should be left up to the
states.
Thus far, both Rudy Giuliani and Howard Dean have made such claims.
Therefore I contend that if they truly believe this, they would
support either scaling back the enforcement powers of the BATFE,
and/or liberalizing other federal gun laws.
|1.24.07 @ 11:29AM|#
"I'm not arguing the "group right" interpretation - I
actually agree that the 2nd amendment does protect an individual
right. My point is that the inclusion of the "well-regulated"
language makes it clear that the founders themselves believed that
a degree of regulation could be introduced without infringing on
that right."
Joe, I think that you're somewhat confused in that you're applying
a contemporary meaning to the term "well-regulated" rather than the
meaning of the phrase at the time of the BOR being authored.
At the time, "well-regulated" was used to mean that something was
maintained to be in good working order.
As such a "well-regulated militia" would be one that is properly
equipped and trained. Were I a true 2nd Amendment zealot, I could
argue that this means the government has an obligation to issue
military-grade small arms to the populace at large, as well as
offer training.
|1.24.07 @ 11:49AM|#
Mediageek: I'm not trying to distract anybody. I'm just pointing
out that you are holding Giuliani to a standard that his party, the
GOP, doesn't even live up to.
You are correct that the GOP hasn't been making noises about
leaving gun regs up to the states. They have actually
federalized some areas of gun control, i.e., President
Bush's "Project Safe Neighborhoods" transfers the prosecution of
gun crimes from states to the federal government.
Rudy Giuliani will probably lose the GOP nomination because he
tends to have practical solutions. Practicality seems to be the
fatal flaw in GOP candidates.
|1.24.07 @ 11:49AM|#
|1.24.07 @ 2:01PM|#
"I'm not trying to distract anybody. I'm just pointing out
that you are holding Giuliani to a standard that his party, the
GOP, doesn't even live up to."
Here's the deal:
I hold no delusions about the Republican party being particularly
pro-rights.
However, if I'm to believe that Giuliani is going to suddenly be
pro-gun, he better start genuflecting right now.
If someone who has a history of anti-gun policies wants to convince
me that he's had a serious change of heart, then it's going to take
more than a few warmed-over statements to convince me that they're
not just jockeying for votes.
|1.24.07 @ 3:14PM|#
"As I said "well regulated" only relates to the functioning of
the ORGANIZED militia when it is acting in it's capacity as a
militia. It does NOT apply to being able to "regulate" the right of
the people to keep and bear arms."
Says you.
"As I said before the "well regulated" phrase is in the dependent
clause of the sentence and the right "of the people" is in the
independent clause of the sentence."
That sentence is so mangled, I'm not sure the rules of English
grammer even apply. It's like non-Euclidean geometry. God bless
writing by committee.
|1.24.07 @ 3:16PM|#
What's the matter, Lamar, cat got your tongue?
mediageek,
That was one, but not by any means the only or even the
predominant, use of the term "regulated" at the time. They had
regulations issued by the government as we understand them today,
and referred to them as such.
|1.24.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Also, mediageek, why are you so certain that the Mayor of New
York was being honest when he supported gun control when holding
public office in New York, but is pandering when taking a different
stance in a national election?
A local or state politician arguing for local and state gun
regulation is perfectly consistent with a belief that gun
regulation is a local or state, rather than federal, issue.
|1.24.07 @ 5:11PM|#
"It does NOT apply to being able to "regulate" the right of
the people to keep and bear arms."
Says you."
So, how exactly does one go about regulating a right that shall not
be infringed?
"That sentence is so mangled, I'm not sure the rules of English
grammer even apply. It's like non-Euclidean geometry. God bless
writing by committee."
Joe, Eugene
Volokh disagrees. Many laws at the time had "justification
clauses" in them. I will defer to his authority on the topic.
|1.24.07 @ 5:16PM|#
"Also, mediageek, why are you so certain that the Mayor of
New York was being honest when he supported gun control when
holding public office in New York, but is pandering when taking a
different stance in a national election?"
It's a cliché, but actions do speak louder than words.
There's also that whole thing where Rudy attempted to sue several
gun manufacturers into oblivion, too.
On top of that, Giuliani made noises in an attempt to get other
states to institute stiffer gun control laws. (Though not nearly to
the same extent that Bloomberg has.)
|1.24.07 @ 6:11PM|#
"Is there any reason to conclude that the word regulate
means something different in 'well-regulated militia' than it does
in 'regulate commerce between the states?'
"
(1) Article I and the Bill of Rights were written three years apart
and are two separate documents. Is there any reason to believe that
the word regulation means the same thing?
(2) Unless there is a list of definitions, I will always use the
definition most appropriate to the context.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245