Gun control and constitutionality

[PJ]

Note: this has nothing to do with supporting gun control.

[Sol]

Accidentally voted 2, but meant 1.

[Supersonic]

Originally option 2, but I've shifted my position slightly and am now more option 3.

[bedstuy]

I think you could ban a gun type that isn't popular or in common use by civilians.  You could ban machine guns, for example, because they are not in common use by civilians. 

Regulations of guns are Constitutional.  But, you could imagine a regulation being far-reaching enough to raise the same problems for the Supreme Court as the DC gun ban.  A regulation that made it effectively impossible for a law-abiding, normal citizen to get a gun would be unconstitutional under Heller I would say.

[Cory]

Option 3, of course.

[Consciously Unconscious]

Option 3, of course.

[ElectionsGuy]

Option 4, unless background checks and requiring licenses/permits is "gun control", then option 3.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

Option 3, of course.

[Redalgo]

Option 3 - my reading of the Second Amendment as it is written translates from: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. -to- People have a right to own and wield weapons uninhibited by the law because it is in the public interest for them to be equipped for battle.

It does not say which weapons must be available or that weapons cannot be regulated at all. On the other hand, it seems to imply there cannot be regulations that would disqualify people from owning weapons or carrying them in public. And I guess it would also go against the spirit of the text to restrict civilian access to weapons of the types and qualities used in the military?

So waiting periods and bans on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, or automatic firearms would be unconstitutional whereas requiring weapon registration, safety courses, background checks, inclusion of safety mechanisms on guns, storage of weapons in password protected gun safes, or provisions for keeping weapons out of the reach of children would be alright provided the adverse consequences of non-compliance (or failure of classes) do not include any forfeiture of armament rights.

For others who chose option three, how are you interpreting the text?

[politicallefty]

I voted for option 2. I think the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment gives the intent and establishes that the government has power to regulate the right to keep and bear arms. My interpretation is that, while there may be an individual right, it is far from limitless. Only laws that outright forbid or otherwise make it practically impossible for individuals to own firearms should be considered unconstitutional. While I don't know the specific details of the law, I would have upheld the DC handgun ban, provided it did not preclude people from possessing a firearm.

[Bojack Horseman]

I think it gives you the right to own a gun, but the government has every right to regulate it.

[badgate]

Option 4, unless background checks and requiring licenses/permits is "gun control", then option 3.

How about requiring that gun owners purchase insurance.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Option 4, unless background checks and requiring licenses/permits is "gun control", then option 3.

What about prison regulations prohibiting prisoners from possessing firearms?  Clearly some forms of gun control are constitutionally permissible, since they were going on when the Constitution was signed, and that gives us some insight into what the Framers meant.

[LeBron]

I would support an all-out gun ban even though it's not constitutional. A "gun ban" and the "right to keep and bear arms" are pretty bland which gives them room for interpretation. As long as the gun ban laws still allow for having the right to bear arms within the household with a gun that's unloaded or concealed with a trigger lock, it would be constitutional in my opinion since the Constitution says nothing about being able to use the gun directly for self-defense, hunting or other purposes. As long as you can keep or bear that firearm, that's all that matters and nothing else.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Option 4, unless background checks and requiring licenses/permits is "gun control", then option 3.

[Potatoe]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

[Randy Bobandy]

Only a gun ban.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

[Potatoe]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

[Deus Naturae]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

[Potatoe]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

Fine, I may not have the best understanding of the Constitution, being from the UK, but my take normally is if a gun is unpopular or has no business in Hunting, it probably shouldn't be completely free to sell, especially after the Dunblane massacre, and I believe that the "Right to bear arms" line was written in a time when it was necessary to own a gun, considering the Revolutionary War, nowadays, it's less so.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

freedom or GTFO

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

Fine, I may not have the best understanding of the Constitution, being from the UK, but my take normally is if a gun is unpopular or has no business in Hunting, it probably shouldn't be completely free to sell, especially after the Dunblane massacre, and I believe that the "Right to bear arms" line was written in a time when it was necessary to own a gun, considering the Revolutionary War, nowadays, it's less so.

"If ____ is unpopular or has no business in _____, it probably shouldn't be completely free to ____, especially after ____."   Fill in the blanks and it as often as not is used to justify some form of tyranny as it is to justify something desirable.  Especially the unpopular bit.  The idea that something should be more worthy of being banned because it is unpopular makes my libertarian skin crawl. The idea that the only legitimate use of firearms is Hunting strikes me as naive.  About the only bit of what you just wrote that I agree with is that the recent experience of the American Revolution did give the framers a higher valuation of the Right to Bear Arms than is currently the case in our reasonably stable democracies.  You don't need the Right to Bear Arms as a part of a collective defense against tyranny when you have a functioning democratic system.  Of course, not everyone agrees our system is functioning, and leaving the government to decide when it is, does sort of leave the fox guarding the henhouse, does it not?

[Potatoe]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

Fine, I may not have the best understanding of the Constitution, being from the UK, but my take normally is if a gun is unpopular or has no business in Hunting, it probably shouldn't be completely free to sell, especially after the Dunblane massacre, and I believe that the "Right to bear arms" line was written in a time when it was necessary to own a gun, considering the Revolutionary War, nowadays, it's less so.

"If ____ is unpopular or has no business in _____, it probably shouldn't be completely free to ____, especially after ____."   Fill in the blanks and it as often as not is used to justify some form of tyranny as it is to justify something desirable.  Especially the unpopular bit.  The idea that something should be more worthy of being banned because it is unpopular makes my libertarian skin crawl. The idea that the only legitimate use of firearms is Hunting strikes me as naive.  About the only bit of what you just wrote that I agree with is that the recent experience of the American Revolution did give the framers a higher valuation of the Right to Bear Arms than is currently the case in our reasonably stable democracies.  You don't need the Right to Bear Arms as a part of a collective defense against tyranny when you have a functioning democratic system.  Of course, not everyone agrees our system is functioning, and leaving the government to decide when it is, does sort of leave the fox guarding the henhouse, does it not?

Not particularly, and what else would you use a Gun for? Again, this probably comes from living in the UK, but wouldn't you shoot for that sole reason? Or is "muh guns to defend against criminals" the only reason? Considering that it'd be better to live in a safer neighbourhood or to at least keep your gun away from kids, I see no reason to want to shoot someone.

[Deus Naturae]

Honestly, it's already ridiculously easy to get a gun in the US, especially around the Bible Belt, why would you want it to be even more easy?

freedom

'Kay, freedom to shoot people? That's an odd freedom, to say the least.

Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, yet there are far fewer murders each year, why would that be?

How is that relevant to the Constitution?

Fine, I may not have the best understanding of the Constitution, being from the UK, but my take normally is if a gun is unpopular or has no business in Hunting, it probably shouldn't be completely free to sell, especially after the Dunblane massacre, and I believe that the "Right to bear arms" line was written in a time when it was necessary to own a gun, considering the Revolutionary War, nowadays, it's less so.

"If ____ is unpopular or has no business in _____, it probably shouldn't be completely free to ____, especially after ____."   Fill in the blanks and it as often as not is used to justify some form of tyranny as it is to justify something desirable.  Especially the unpopular bit.  The idea that something should be more worthy of being banned because it is unpopular makes my libertarian skin crawl. The idea that the only legitimate use of firearms is Hunting strikes me as naive.  About the only bit of what you just wrote that I agree with is that the recent experience of the American Revolution did give the framers a higher valuation of the Right to Bear Arms than is currently the case in our reasonably stable democracies.  You don't need the Right to Bear Arms as a part of a collective defense against tyranny when you have a functioning democratic system.  Of course, not everyone agrees our system is functioning, and leaving the government to decide when it is, does sort of leave the fox guarding the henhouse, does it not?

Not particularly, and what else would you use a Gun for? Again, this probably comes from living in the UK, but wouldn't you shoot for that sole reason? Or is "muh guns to defend against criminals" the only reason? Considering that it'd be better to live in a safer neighbourhood or to at least keep your gun away from kids, I see no reason to want to shoot someone.

Again, what does any of that have to do with the US Constitution? You may view strict gun control laws as a desirable outcome, but that is irrelevant to the constitutionality of such laws.