Gun Control

Please forgive that my posts are not cleanly formatted. I am using my cell phone as my laptop is no longer functional. I will begin my argument by showing that American courts have repeatedly supported the rights of an individual to keep and bear arms. All of these cases should be viewed as an extension of the Second Amendment. The cases I am referring to are as follows: -Presser V. State of Illinois (1886) *1 "But in view of the fact that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force of the national government as well as in view of its general powers, the states cannot prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security." Miller V. United States (1939) *2 "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158. The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." While this case appears to be contrary to my side of the debate, I would like to highlight two portions of the case. 1.) The milita is defined as all males physically capable of acting for the common defense. As women are a significant portion of todays armed forces and allowed to serve in a combat role, a modern militia would imply virtually everyone. 2.) "When called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." Thus supporting private civilian ownership of modern firearms. In regards to the aspect of the case regarding the legality of a sawn off shotgun, I wish to remind you that they are legal with the proper process and tax stamp as outlined in the gun control act of 1968. Heller V. District of Columbia (2008) *3 "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." 2. "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court"s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller"s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." Pp. 54""56. -Peruta V. City of San Diego (2013) (posting a summary on this one as it does a good enough job explaining) *4 Plaintiffs filed suit challenging California's concealed handgun laws. At issue was whether a responsible, law-abiding citizen had a right under the Second Amendment to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. The court concluded that the right to bear arms included the right to carry an operable firearm outside the home and that carrying weapons for the lawful purpose of self defense was a central component of the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment required that the state permit some form of carry for self-defense outside the home. The California scheme did not allow the typical responsible, law-abiding citizen to bear arms in public for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Because the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits eschewed history and tradition in their analysis of the constitutionality of such regulations, the court found their approaches unpersuasive. Accordingly, the court concluded that the district court erred in denying plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Second Amendment claim because the County's "good cause" permitting requirement impermissibly infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms in lawful self-defense. On to a rebuttal. You stated that an AK-47 in a typical American household was excessive. Current estimates put the number of modern sporting rifles (semi-automatic, detachable box magazine) in America at somewhere around 30 million. Meaning that they currently are in fact typical in an American household. With the population at somewhere around 315 million, that is a MSR in one in every ten homes. Which is unquestionably "in common use." According to FBI homicide statistics *5 from 2011, only 323 murders were committed using rifles in that year. For comparison, on average 77 people per year choke to death on hot dogs. By the numbers... an assault rifle is only 4x more likely to kill you than a hot dog. In regards to- "A well regulated mob, being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear any arms at all, shall never be denied." I will not deny that there are those on BOTH sides who currently believe that is the case. I say on both sides due to the large number of liberals who are completely ignorant of past/current gun control legislation and believe fully automatic weapons are readily available for anyone at anytime. Which is just not the case. "It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens." [2] "Not all Americans are law-abiding. Due to the lack of sophisticated gun control, the crime rate in the United States has increased by a considerable amount." It is exactly because not all Americans are law abiding that the right to keep and more importantly bear arms is an essential right. Studies continually find that citizens with permits to carry a concealed weapon are responsible for a disproportionately LOW amount of crime. In response to your statement that assault rifles should only be owned by law enforcement and military members, nearly half of the owners of MSR's are present or former military/LE. I would argue that just as congress shall enact no law that does not equally apply to them as it does to civilians; gun control should not restrict any firearm from a civilian while permitting a police officer have it. I believe the opposite holds true as well. Not really a point of rebuttal, but you are correct in saying that a self defense weapon should be a pistol and maybe a shotgun. This is due to the over penetration which would result from using a rifle caliber. Over penetration is also the reason nearly all self defense rounds are hollow points. I wouldn't choose a shotgun simply because I can't control where that shot will go. Then again, a shotgun does have the advantage that you probably won't have to shoot after you pump. In regard to your equations which are a vast oversimplification of a larger problem... I present to you an excerpt from a harvard study on that exact topic. *6 ""the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world." In regards to your closing statement, specifically: "the TEA Party members especially - claim they want to take their guns away. These misinterpretations of the facts must end." I wish to direct you to look into what is currently happening in New York and Connecticut. Basically that is exactly what is happening. In a display of patriotism and testicular fortitude, Connecticut MSR owners have overwhelmingly ignored the mandated registration. Leaving gun control proponents in an interesting situation... how do you respond when you've just turned potentially as many as 100k citizens into felons? Do you act with force against previously law abiding citizens? Locking them up is certainly not an option as it would cost more than the state earns annually. They are left with a choice between not enforcing it/repealing it or sending SWAT teams against a significant portion of their population. Which would most certainly do more harm than maintaining the status quo. To the gun owners of Connecticut- Stand strong. Molon Labe. *1 https://supreme.justia.com... *2 http://www.law.cornell.edu... *3 http://supreme.justia.com... *4 http://law.justia.com... *5 http://www.fbi.gov... *6 http://www.bostonmagazine.com...