Will D.C. Replace a Handgun Ban With Prohibitive Regulations?

Yesterday the District of Columbia unveiled new firearm rules that are meant to comply with the Supreme Court's recent ruling overturning D.C.'s 32-year-old handgun ban. The proposed legislation makes an exception to the ban for handguns kept in the home for self-defense, and it "clarifies that no carry license is required inside the home." It also "clarifies" the storage rule for firearms, saying a gun can legally be unlocked and loaded "while it is being used against [a]reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person." Otherwise "firearms in the home must be stored unloaded and either disassembled [or] secured with a trigger lock, gun safe, or similar device." The mention of gun safes is new and, depending on the kind of safe, could allow faster retrieval of a weapon in an emergency. But the requirement that even guns in safes be kept unloaded seems like an unreasonable impediment to self-defense that could be open to challenge.

The city continues to maintain that "most semiautomatic pistols" remain illegal under D.C.'s "machine gun" ban, which bizarrely covers not just automatic weapons but "any firearm which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot...more than 12 shots without manual reloading," even if each trigger pull fires just one round. As I pointed out last month, there is no shortage of pistols that fire 12 or fewer rounds, but I don't know how many of them "can be readily converted" to fire more than that. If the city claims any handgun that can accept (or be modified to accept) a magazine holding more than 12 rounds is prohibited, would that cover "most semiautomatic pistols"? All handguns except "revolvers and derringers," as the Violence Policy Center argues?

Meanwhile, the procedure for legally owning whichever handguns are allowed sounds pretty onerous:

a. A District resident who seeks to register a handgun must obtain an application form from MPD's Firearms Registration Section and take it to a firearms dealer for assistance in completing it.

b. The applicant must submit photos, proof of residency and proof of good vision (such as a driver's license or doctor's letter), and pass a written firearms test.

c. If the applicant is successful on the test, s(he) must pay registration fees and submit to fingerprinting. MPD will file one set of fingerprints and submit the other to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for analysis and criminal background check.

d. MPD will notify the applicant whether all registration requirements are satisfied. At that point, the applicant returns to the Firearms Registration Section to complete the process and receive MPD's seal on the application.

e. The applicant takes his or her completed application to a licensed firearm dealer to take delivery of the pistol. If the dealer is outside the District, the dealer transports the pistol to a licensed dealer in the District to complete the transaction.

f. The applicant takes the pistol to the Firearms Registration Section for ballistics testing. When testing is complete, the applicant may retrieve the pistol and take it home.

The question is whether D.C. will make it so difficult to possess guns and use them in self-defense that it will end up back in court on the losing end of another Second Amendment lawsuit.

[Thanks to John Kluge for the tip.]

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • bubba||

    I don't think there are any licensed firearm dealers in DC.

    And any semiautomatic pistol can be "converted" by fitting a longer magazine that extends beyond the grip and holds more than 12 rounds.

    So, even with an electronic, high speed safe, I still have to load my revolver before the intruder gets to me?

    Apparently they didn't read the part of the opinion that stated the regulations can't asinine.

  • Nigel Watt||

    Wait, so you have to keep the firearm disassembled until there is a reasonable threat? The hell?

  • ||

    Will D.C. Replace a Handgun Ban With Prohibitive Regulations?

    Yes. Many here predicted as much.

  • JB||

    "Shall not be infringed." Is it any wonder DC schools are so bad when the mayor and city council cannot even read that statement?

    All these illiterates can jump in a lake and go fly a kite.

  • squarooticus||

    This strategy has worked wonders in MA: make the process so difficult that a lot of MA gun owners are now either "former gun owners" or "former MA".

    Kyle

  • Paul||

    Will D.C. Replace a Handgun Ban With Prohibitive Regulations?



    Yes. Next topic.

  • Paul||

    MA gun owners are now either "former gun owners" or "former MA".

    Or illegal gun owners.

  • Paul||

    but I don't know how many of them "can be readily converted" to fire more than that.

    Any semi-auto gun can be converted to fire full-auto, with enough gunsmithing skills. The fact that the firearm returns to a state where it is ready to be fired again--automatically-- but requiring a subsequent trigger pull, can be modifie to full auto.

  • Colin||

    This should've been expected.

    Why not make those registration fees $10,000, $100,000, or even higher?

    I bet you almost no one in DC will ever get a handgun. And by the time new lawsuit reaches the Supreme Court, Barky may have already loaded it (no pun intended.)

  • squarooticus||

    Or illegal gun owners.


    Well, that too... but given what the MA government-not to mention the feds-will do to you if they catch you possessing firearms against the whims of the ruling class, I really can't believe this is a very popular option.

    It's been clear for at least a decade that gun owners and civil libertarians in general are personae non gratae in MA; my guess is that most such people who aren't bound here by employment or family have packed up and moved on out, which would explain how MA gets increasingly anti-gun when the rest of country is moving in the other direction.

  • ||

    I don't think there are any licensed firearm dealers in DC.



    You'd be wrong. Josh Sugarmann, Executive Director of the Violence Policy Center holds a Federal Firearms License.

    You can verify this for yourself by going to the BATFE's online FFL EZ Check website and entering the following:

    1-54-XXX-XX-XX-00725

    (Where the X's are shown will be blanked out on the ATF's website, so just enter the numbers.)

    Or, you can see a screen capture of Josh's license info on David Hardy's blog.

  • Ska||

    I just looked at what it takes to legally own a rifle or shotgun (forget handgun, you're dreaming) in NYC, and it's just as bad as this.

  • ptg||

    They shouldn't be able to make such rules regulations stick. Permits and licensing requirements are unconstitutional where fundamental constitutional rights are concerned.

  • Paul||

    It's been clear for at least a decade that gun owners and civil libertarians in general are personae non gratae in MA

    Dude, it's the northeast. Think of it like a line of dominos. You were the first to fall, we in the West are just beginning to fall.

  • ||

    This is just like Jim Crowe laws, but for guns.

  • ||

    "Shall not be infringed" means just that. No offense to any bloggers, but the inferior intellectual position is "this can't be taken literally in a modern society" or "the absolute position is for folks who can't recognize that everything is relative" or "chaos would ensue if there were no registration and licensing schemes".

    The superior intellectual position is one that recognizes that there are some absolutes and that the universe has managed to survive notwithstanding the fact that there are absolutes. The superior intellectual position recognizes that the framers intended some things to be absolute. They anticipated the gibberish offered up by some so-called "intellectuals" to the effect that "well, there has to be some government regulation, oversight of things lest we descend into chaos". The founders were smart enough to dismiss such non-sense as it is almost always offered up by the king, his men, those that depend upon him or those that curry his favor. Besides, there is no empirical proof to support the chicken little cries of Caesar and his supplicants that the sky will fall without "reasonable regulation" or "more oversight" or "the gvt's power must be elastic in order to deal with new problems, eh, crises".

  • Elemenope||

    Huh. And you, sir, are fortunate enough to be the herald of the superior intellectual position?

    How lucky.

    /deserved snark

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Did I tell you my position? have I given you any clues?

  • Elemenope||

    liberty mike --

    As usual, I'm not snarking at the position so much as the arrogance of its presentation. When someone claims to be enlightened, or superior, or specially-informed, my bullshit meter goes into the red.

    So I could give a damn what the position is you were advocating; as soon as I read "the superior intellectual position [which just so happens to be mine]", I immediately thought "hm. Bullshit."

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Can't we have some fun?

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Agree or not: some things are absolute and some things are relative?

  • ||

    "Sorry, Mr. Jones, looks like your permit application has failed yet again. But luckily we now have your name, address and whereabouts on file as someone interested in gun ownership. We'll be seeing you if any gun crimes happen to occur."

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    BTW, let's be real-just fess up. You think that you are smarter than joe. Its okay, I won't think of you as an intellectual snob.

  • Elemenope||

    liberty mike --

    LOL, agreed, and no I don't think I'm particularly smarter than joe. Guy Montag, definitely, but joe? Though I rarely agree with him (that count is temporarily inflated by the fact we happen to support the same presidential candidate, and even that for what I assume are very different reasons) he is usually insightful when his blood isn't up.

    There are certainly commenters here who are a decent amount smarter than me, or at the very least have had a great deal more training in fields that I am but a dilettante.

  • Neu Mejican||

    "Shall not be infringed" means just that.

    So then, refute this statement:

    A gun license does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

  • Neu Mejican||

    That was, btw, an absolute statement.

    [/snark]

  • Neu Mejican||

    Prediction:

    Liberty mike will refute my absolute statement with examples that depend upon relative degrees of infringement.

  • ||

    Neu Mejican-

    You are absolutely right, though the hour is relatively late and I shall not infringe on wife time.

  • Paul||

    A gun license does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

    As long as no one is denied a license.

  • Paul||

    That was, btw, an absolute statement.

    Mmm, relatively...

  • ||

    LMNOP-

    Though I rarely agree with him(joe)

    1)Socialist InSecurity-- For or against?
    2)8th month abortion- For or against?
    3)"Progressive" taxation- For or against?
    4)"Waterboarding" is torture?- for or against?
    5)"Public Education"- for or against?
    6)"Medicaid/Medicare"" -- for or against?
    7)"School vouchers", "gay adoption", "mass transit subsidies", "glowball warming", etc.

    Perhaps you should mention where your "liberal agenda" is actually different than joe's "liberal agenda"?

  • ||

    A gun license does infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

    I'll admit, it puts the fringe in infringe. It's not totally unreasonable, with a certain set of assumptions, to say that a gun license might be sensible. Unfortunately, it's an infringement.

  • Elemenope||

    Wowsers! I think this is the first time I personally have been trolled on this board. Happy day! ;)

    Loaded questions abound, but...

    1)Socialist InSecurity-- For or against?

    I don't find retirement accounts to be a particularly bad thing. I'm not crazy about taxation in support of it, and there must be a better way to provide for those who are no longer of working age but still have every right to continue existing. Many people are fortunate enough and have enough foresight to save when they are working; some do not have the capacity to do so. I certainly don't think millions of octogenarians rotting in the streets is a great idea. No, I am not particularly intimidated by the notion that this comes perilously close to "socialist sympathy" around here.

    2)8th month abortion- For or against?

    Asking someone whether they are "for abortion" is kind of like asking someone whether they are "for nazis" if they happen to believe in free speech. My personal political philosophy is rooted in the notion that all freedom is derived not from "natural rights" or from property, but from the simple physical autonomy of the human body (you are in control over most of its actions, and cannot ever escape it as a prison). It's hard to take that seriously and not come to the unhappy but necessary consequence that a woman has absolute control over their body and whatever happens to be growing in it. I find the violinist thought experiment to be decisive.

    3)"Progressive" taxation- For or against?

    For, but not for any silly leveling or "socialist" reason. It simply occurs to me that owners of the means of production benefit disproportionately from the creation and maintenance of infrastructure. So, they should pay proportionately to their own benefit.

    4)"Waterboarding" is torture?- for or against?

    Torture. Torture=Bad. A fucking five year old knows this. Apparently only partisan hacks do not. One thing is for certain; everyone knows that torture is wrong to be applied to *themselves*. What deficiency in human empathy causes people to fail to cross that narrow gap to the other is quite beyond my reckoning.

    5)"Public Education"- for or against?

    Against. But the private market is not robust enough to step into the gap instantly. And I should also point out that the peculiar conditions that created a universally literate population without public education a hundred years ago no longer exist in this country, and are unlikely to return even if public schools were closed tomorrow. Too much has changed with our labor structure, such as, among other things, women working rather than being at home teaching their kids how to read. Our civil structure is heavily dependent upon the assumption of a literate population.

    6)"Medicaid/Medicare"" -- for or against?

    Against. However, the private system also blows chunks, far more than mere market pressures suggest it ought to. You got a fix for that? Ever been sick?

    7)"School vouchers" (competition is good), "gay adoption" (of course), "mass transit subsidies" (not crazy about them), "glowball warming" (probably is happening, but is a poor reason to use for policy when there are much easier criteria to use to come to similar conclusions), etc.

    I also like guns and drugs. Alot. Both personally, and as a matter of commerce.

    Lower taxes are generally good if they are accompanied by reduced spending. Not all spending is equal; Gen. Bradley was right in saying that every dollar spent on a tank of a missile is doubly a theft, and I would just as soon not shed a tear if every dollar spent on foreign wars and massive military exostructure was instead diverted to the uplifting of the human condition. It would be a supreme good to be able to reduce all taxes and reduce all spending, but priorities can still remain within that framework.

    Markets are extremely impressive distributed data aggregation machines, but they cannot solve all problems. Just most of them that include a problem involving distributed data aggregation. Not so much for problems that have little to do with information.

    Perhaps you should mention where your "liberal agenda" is actually different than joe's "liberal agenda"?

    I disagree with joe on, among other things, the utility of labor unions, the usefulness of regulation, the proper limits of government intervention in the marketplace, judicial philosophy, movie taste, and those are just the ones I've had the privilege of discussing with him. I'm sure there are many more.

    I still imagine him to be a more productive and more decent human being than you, anon, just given the limited data set we have before us today. Prove me wrong, if you can.

  • ||

    Oh for fuck's sake.

    I honestly hope that all of these "all or nothing" pro-gun activists get cancer and die.

    Utterly fucking worthless.

    Politics is the art of the possible, and right now, as much as I wish that the federal government would recognize the absolute right of US citizens to bear arms, I'm certainly not cretinously stupid enough to think that it will happen. Not being a mouth-breathing twatfuck, I'm glad that we were able to get the Supreme Court to rule that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and I look forward to a future wherein 2nd Amendment activists use this decision as a tool to further the recognition of this civil right.

    The forces of organized gun bigotry did not have their policies implemented in one fell swoop. Likewise, we will not take back our right in any manner other than deliberate and incremental change.

  • ||

    mouth-breathing twatfuck

    Thank you for the sublime phrase. I will be using it as much as possible.

  • ||

    Hey Fenty!
    "Molôn Labé!"

  • robc||

    mediageek,

    New Zealand. Apply where applicable.

    (I hope that isnt too obscure.)

  • robc||

    Dan Uggla is sucking it up.

  • Huh?||

    also point out that the peculiar conditions that created a universally literate population without public education a hundred years ago no longer exist in this country

    The universally literate population is *because* of a longstanding public education system (that goes back to time of Jefferson and even before)

    Once a critical mass of women and children showed up every frontier town put up a church and a school - the former paid for at the collection plate, the latter paid for with some kind of tax. (or to be fair sometimes the collection plate as well) - but they allowed every kid* to attend, which is the real definition of public education.

    Now, 150 years ago it wasn't centralized and defintely wasn't federalized, I'll grant you that. (but 100 years ago it was assuredly well on its way to being centralized and standardized - at least on the state level, and especially in the progresive belt connecting greatlakes/midatlantic/newengland)

    *well, every white kid. But there were also very specific projects to (seperately) teach lettering to the indians, (and to a lesser extent blacks) and clense them of their savage ways.

  • ||

    "I don't think there are any licensed firearm dealers in DC."

    I'm sure that if there are any now, they'll be harassed continuously the same way that Marijuana dispensaries are harassed by the Feds.

    This case is going to go back to court again and again for the next 50 years, until and unless the voters who elect DC officials get sick of it and elect a pro-constitution city council.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I think it will be a long time before that first person uses a legal firearm to protect their family residence.

    "Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too damn old to take an ass kickin." - Bill Fleming.

    Fenty - Molon labe!

  • ||

    A gun license does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

    Only so long as the license is a "shall-issue" license.

    If its discretionary, then what you have is the right to keep and bear arms may be denied at the discretion of the state. I think that counts as infringed.

    Even the requirements for a shall-issue license can make it an infringement. If they cost $1,000 per year, perhaps. Or "shall-issue" only to white people. I think we would all agree that would infringe, no?

    So, a license requirement is a just a bucket to hold all the restrictions on the right inherent in qualifying for and keeping the license. Do those restrictions "infringe"? You tell me.

  • Elemenope||

    Huh? --

    Those schools didn't have compulsory attendance and certainly didn't have universal attendance. Many, if not most, children learned to read from their parents and never set foot in a school house. The modern compulsory educational system was invented in Prussia at the turn of the 20th century. Its implementation here was fiercely resisted, but was finally implemented by fiat nationally during the FDR administration.

  • Johnny Nowhere||

    Huh?,

    I'll add to Elemenope's comment that there were areas where a region's largest employer (in Calumet, MI, for example) built and maintained schools as an incentive to draw workers.

  • Frank||

    I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe. The ammunition should also be required to be in a safe, which should be required to be a separate safe and should be required to be in a different room in the house.

  • Jim||

    Heller is simply a right wing Roe, and as blatant an example of anti-democratic "judicial activism" as one can find. By affirming both an individual right to bear arms and the ability of the government to regulate the ownership and use of weapons, the Court has embarked upon is a decades-long project of legislation from the bench. Now it is for the Justices hammer out how much regulation is too much, just as they have spent the last thirty years haggling over parental notification requirements, mandatory waiting periods, and the like in the abortion context. As if the Constitution has anything to say about it!

  • ||

    Jim,

    Originally I was going to disagree with you, but you're really exactly right. The Supreme Court has fulfilled the function for which it was designed: striking down a law contrary to the Constitution--the Supreme Law of the land. In a sense this is even an intellectually easier case than the abortion cases because the court had to first find procreative and privacy rights in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. In this case the right to bear arms is specifically enumerated.

    In my view, the Supreme Court should strike down any law that infringes on this right unless the law is narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest. That's what it means for a right to be fundamental--it cannot be easily limited by government.

  • RobertG||

    The fascist are quick to replace the ban with onerous regulations aren't they? That is part of what being a fascist it--suppressing the mere riff raft subjects. We see the same arguments "I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe"; and how would a citizen protect themselves with that gun?

    The person making that argument probably resents being called a fascist and considers themselve a good person. Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin all thought themselves good, they just killed a lot of people.

    These gun bans and onerous regulations are just part and parcel of stripping the autonomy of the American people and making them dependant on the State. That is most certainly fascism and I do not care what lies are told to deny it.

    Our Constitution and our Natural Rights as Free People do not allow for any 'democratic' process to strip us of these Rights (Jim | July 16, 2008, 9:40am ). No, Heller was NOT Judicial Activism; Heller upheld a Constitution safeguard. But Fascist feel otherwise. Heller's one big flaw was the 'reasonable restrictions'. I imagine that was needed to get the coward Kennedy on board. That kind of horse trading should not be part of the process, but we are stuck with it for awhile.If any here resent being called Fascist try to answer: Why do you feel you and your elected officials have a right to suppress the rights of others? Why do you think you need to hire a man with a gun to subjugate our people when they try to act honestly? If these 'elected officials worked half as hard arresting actual criminals as they work suppressing our rights we might get somewhere.
    Nuremberg Laws next I would guess; the fascist are busy.

  • Elemenope||

    And I suppose it never occurs to people such as RobertG that the motivation behind such legislation, however wrong-headed it may be in the cash-out, is jackbooted thuggery.

    The notion that people might want gun control because *they believe* it will result in less people killed...that's impossible!

  • Elemenope||

    Oh for the love of... here's how that was meant to read:

    "And I suppose it never occurs to people such as RobertG that the motivation behind such legislation, however wrong-headed it may be in the cash-out, might be something other than jack-booted thuggery."

    [facepalm] Proofread, damn it!

  • Jim in Houston||

    "Frank | July 16, 2008, 9:25am | #
    I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe. The ammunition should also be required to be in a safe, which should be required to be a separate safe and should be required to be in a different room in the house."

    Have you given much thought to home defense under such an arrangement?

  • PC||

    Scalia did such a great job huh? Where in the 2nd Amendment does is specify "in the home"? And of course while you have a right to "self defense [in the home]" you don't have a right to adequate self defense.

    "Excuse me Mr. Rapist, please let me get into my house, get my keys to unlock my gun, load my gun, and then try to rape me."

    I wish Fenty's bodyguards had the same restrictions.

  • PC||

    I wish they put as many restrictions on public housing vouchers here in DC. I wouldn't need a gun then.

  • ||

    I think it's great! Hopefully the non-clarification by Scalia and the intentionally obtuse reading by D.C. officials will hasten the day this returns to the Supreme Court. Perhaps this time Scalia and company will give a legitimate ruling which fully integrates the operative verb, infringed. Since the definition of infringed is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the bill of Rights was ratified, one must wonder what part of "shall not be infringed" remains unclear?

  • ||

    A gun license (by it's very existence) is a gun registry, which is patently unconstitutional.

  • Jordan||

    The notion that people might want gun control because *they believe* it will result in less people killed...that's impossible!



    Fascism with good intentions is still fascism. The road to hell, and all that.

  • RobertG||

    "The notion that people might want gun control because *they believe* it will result in less people killed...that's impossible!"

    No, not impossible and probably true. And it is still fascism. They are using illegal authority to deprive people of their Constitutional and Natural Right. So we call them fascist becasue they are fascist. Perhaps well meaning fascist, smiley faced fascist, but fascist none the less.

    The KKK nightriders considered themselves good people when they tied a man to a tree and stripped the skin off his back or castrated him or hanged him.
    Mayor Fenty considers himself a goodman I am sure. But Mayor Fenty and the KKK nightriders are more fascist than liberal democrat-traditional.

    The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions
    Dial 9-1-1 and die. Have a nice Reich.

  • RobertG||

    Ooops

    Beat me to it
    Jordan | July 16, 2008, 12:22pm | #

  • ||

    Ah, but Jordan, at least our Fascist Masters will ensure that the railroad to hell runs on schedule.

  • Elemenope||

    My point is that throwing around labels carelessly (and "Fascism" is indeed a careless and barely applicable label in this instance) not only demeans the meaning and force of the original word, but also identifies you as a person who is too shrill to discuss with on the issue.

    How, I may ask, do you hope to persuade or convince people if you call them names? If you truly do believe that their mistake originates from bad principles rather than malice, perhaps a different approach is in order.

  • ||

    I think a reasonable restriction would be that the gun should be required to be unloaded, and in a locked safe. The ammunition should also be required to be in a safe, which should be required to be a separate safe and should be required to be in a different room in the house.



    Frank, you're quite plainly pontificating on a topic which you don't understand.

    Or you're deliberately trolling.

  • ||

    People who don't know what fascism is should refrain from using the word fascist. It is better to keep quiet and be thought an idiot ...

    You know who you are.

  • RobertG||

    Oh we know the definition of fascism. We accept neither Lenin nor any other to define it for us--we go to the source--Mussolini. Yes, Mussolini's later adopted by the National Socialist Party of Germany and Franco of Spain although he claimed otherwise.
    Statist, fascist, control. Several of you are real close to that if you think so or not.

    "The law is what the man with the gun says it is". Mao could be considered a fascist with his slightly different wording. Mao probably thought he was a good person too. Are you a good person J sub D?

  • Elemenope||

    RobertG --

    Being a prick sets back your goals far more than any "fascist" ever could. You are behaving like a walking poster-child for why people should not believe what you do.

    I find that far, far more annoying than the statists who are calm enough to discourse with.

  • Elemenope||

    In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm no longer trying to convince you. Hence the name-calling.

  • ||

    On the same track, kinda, I just read an article the other day about celebrating Bastile day in France. The intersting point, to me anyway, was that the main reason they stormed the place was to get arms for the people to be able to resist the forces of government. Apparently the French did not learn their lesson, as they soon gave up the right to bear arms again like the rest of Europe.

  • ||

    As a Jewess in the US, I call upon Congress to immediately pass legislation making any NRA membership card a NATIONAL Concealed carry permit! Let's take back the streets!

  • RobertG||

    Quote:
    Elemenope | July 16, 2008, 1:45pm | #

    In case you haven't figured it out yet, I'm no longer trying to convince you. Hence the name-calling.''

    Enjoy.

  • ||

    did the mayor of dc even ready the courts rolling
    i that the courts ruled that it was also unconstitutional to make people lock up or disassemble there guns

    on a second nowt every time a dictator has came to power thy have strep or attempted to strep there subjects ability to defend them self just start reading history books

    the 2nd amendment was made to make Sher the free man is always free

  • ||

    Elemenope and RobertG-

    Can't we all get along? Me, I'm a lover not a fighter.

  • ||

    Okay, I lied.

  • ||

    Elemenope-

    Took your suggestion. I just checked out the definition of chaos. I note that some synonyms are disarray, turmoil and tumult. I note that some antonyms are order, peace and calm. I suggest that order, peace and calm do not accurately reflect the state of affairs, much of the time, in this country, i.e., the everyday occurences of police brutality, the no-knock raids that kill inocent people, etc., the daily reality that is hell for so many people who happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, the drug war, politically motivated arrests and prosecution, etc.

    Please understand that I do agree that late 20th century, early 21st century America is not as "chaotic" as Mugabe world or the Sudan, Somalia, etc. But, even the case I was talking about yesterday, the guy who got arrested at the police station for trespass and disorderly conduct, that type of stuff scares the shit out of me.

  • Elemenope||

    Please understand that I do agree that late 20th century, early 21st century America is not as "chaotic" as Mugabe world or the Sudan, Somalia, etc. But, even the case I was talking about yesterday, the guy who got arrested at the police station for trespass and disorderly conduct, that type of stuff scares the shit out of me.

    Me too (bold parts for emphasis). I just am somewhat of an anal-retentive on calling things by what they are. In my mind, order enforced at the barrel of a gun is still order. Just not any order I'd want to be a part of.

    I wish, and this is a vain wish, that people would stop automatically associating "order" with "good", and "chaos" with "bad". Of all the things fucking D & D would be fucking right about, it is that segregating the moral and ethical domains into separate axes is the right way to go. A well-ordered society can suck, and a poorly-ordered one can be free and fun. *Can* f course, being the important modal particle.

  • ||

    there is even order with chaos

    what determines if something is good or bat is the purpose or resin it was created
    or the circumstances at the time of a situation

    under the rite situations chaos can be good and order can be bad

  • ||

    Elemenope and zeracore-

    Good points.

    Elemenope, I suppose if some Zimbabwian was listening to me complain about disorder and chaos in America, he might opine, "what are you talking about? Do you have any idea what life is here?" To which, (with your approval, I'm sure) I might reply, "its all relative".

  • ||

    Lysander wrote, "Since the definition of infringed is the same today as it was in the 18th century when the bill of Rights was ratified, one must wonder what part of 'shall not be infringed' remains unclear?"

    Indeed. Over the next few years, I expect to see a parade of cases that are intended to define that very phrase (for legal purposes).

    I really can't square Scalia's reassurance that "reasonable regulation" of the type now common throughout the country is permitted under the 2nd Amendment, with the phrase "shall not be infringed."

    I also can't see how a felon or a mentally ill person can be deprived of 2nd Amendment rights (except during actual confinement in a jail, prison, or mental health facility), as Justice Scalia further assures us is still permissible. If that were so, then what is to stop the authorities from someday "punishing" people by actively denying their rights to free speech, freedom of religion, etc., not to mention unenumerated rights, such as the right to travel, and so forth?

    It seems to me that you would have to declare someone a non-person, with NO unalienable rights, in order to get away with telling someone that he could not keep and bear arms, especially for purposes of self-defense. Or the proper punishment for any crime that now involves the denial of that right (or any others) should be life imprisonment.

  • ||

    James Anderson Merritt-

    Many folks, including some that post here, suffer from the delusion that government is a necesary evil. Put aside the moral arguments, for purposes of this argument, the practical, utilitarian arguments in favor of gvt.being a necesary evil are flaccid.

    On the other hand, there is precious little evidence to support the proposition that an anarcho-free enterprise-tax free, drug law free, alphabet soup agency free, individualist oriented society would be a living hell or hell on earth or the dark ages.

  • ||

    conflict caused by human nature
    were 2 or more people are together conflicts will happen we need laws to make Sher we don't kill each other
    were there is no laws there is anarchy
    were there is no government there is no laws
    in a true Democratic society the people AR the government therefor there is always government

  • scineram||

    It is WRONG, DAMMIT!!!

  • ||

    zeracore:

    We need laws to make sure we don't kill each other? You say this because laws have worked so well to that end until now?

    Also, you are making a common mistake which our government schools tend to perpetuate - we do not live in a democracy. The United States of America is a representative republic. In a true democracy, every member of the society would vote (or has the opportunity to vote) on every issue.

    The main problem with democracy, and with the current system of representative government, is called "the tyranny of the majority" - in layman's terms, two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

    In a country of over 300 million people in which less than 40% actually vote, this results in tens or even hundreds of millions of people subjugated to the whims of a relative few. How can you justify that?

  • ||

    my personal believe is that every member of a society should vote

    i also believe that are election day should be a national Holiday

    and nothing justify less than 40% of a population that actually votes we need a much hiyer percentage voting to show the voes of a society

    there must be a system to make sher that the many don't dominate the few this can go the other way around to

    and this is way we have the 2nd amendment

    the 2nd amendment is to make sher that one group can't overpower and dominant another
    the 2nd amendment is for defending you self and defending you rites it comes in handy for hunting for food to

    p.s. My post above is to point out that were there are 2 or more people there will be conflicts of some tip it is after all human nature

  • ||

    The whole point, zeracore, is that in any system that uses voting to decide on issues, the many will always dominate the few. There is simply no way around it.

  • ||

    and that is y are founding father rote the Constitution the way thy did thy tried to limit the powers of both the state and federal government in certain areas sow the many can not dominate the few

    hens the bill of rites
    face it if we did not have the bill of rites the few wood be living in a police state (if not us all)

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement