Hi Catholic Scientist and AZPaul3,
And that is how it is, no? Granting, in some places the 'proper license and permit' equals 'nothing'.
And that disparity causes problems between states. Now one could argue that it is a matter of interstate trade for federal oversight, but that would be pretty weak imo.
The facts of the matter show that social organizations with increased regulation have fewer problems caused by gun use than social organizations with weak or non-existing regulations. This is simply a matter of numbers, as the more people have guns the higher is the probability that one will be misused.
Regardless, as AZPaul3 said, WE decide when we are justified in "taking the law into our own hands" through the appropriate means according to the particular case.
Message 184: The Constitution doesn't have to give such an authority. All depending upon the circumstances of course, but if the local DA doesn't then most probably the jury would.
Correct, there is no constitutional right to use a gun for a given purpose, you only have the right to bear arms, not to be judge, jury and executioner.
When a gun or other weapon has been used, regardless of location, one needs to show due cause, usually involving self-protection from immanent harm.
You can't just blow someone away that happens to be where you don't want them to be.
I understand your sentiment, but you're acting like there a whole lot of incompetent gun-owners causing a lot of big problems. I'm not seeing an issue here that is of any concern.
And yet, curiously, it is a common argument from pro-gun people that they need to protect themselves from
inappropriate gun users
News stories are usually full (because of the vicarious thrill factor?) of stories about gang violence and guns, drive-by shootings etc.
I certainly don't think such uses are
appropriate for gun owners to engage in, and that lax gun restrictions are a contributing factor to their being a part of the news cycles.
It seems that the pro-gun lobby would rather attack this problem with armed citizens rather than with reasonable regulations and laws. This of course will just make the problem worse, as this will be adding a vigilante gang to the mix.
Assuming some other local issue of concern, that doesn't necessitate a Federal action towards it.
The reason the federal government would get involved is if there is too much disparity between state regulations. There are lots of instances where state laws have differences, but also reasons for overall comparable regulations, such as drivers licenses, particularly for truck and bus drivers.
The question for federal involvement is where is the requirements of the constitution fulfilled with the need to form militias:
Message 43: What the
The Bill of Rights actually says:
quote:
Amendment II
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.
The National Guard units run by the states fulfill this requirement, forming as they do form a "well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" (note meaning of "State" as a government body differs from the meaning of "states" as a subcategory here).
As long as the states can form militia units, such as the National Guard units and like State Police forces, this clause of the constitution is fulfilled.
Message 100: For your edification here is the definition of militia:
quote:
militia n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
[Latin mīlitia, warfare, military service, from mīles, mīlit-, soldier.]
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Note that these definitions can be applied to the National Guard and to State and local Police units.
Message 43: What the
The Bill of Rights actually says:
quote:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Note that this applies to the intruder just as much as it applies to any other person. This is part of the foundation of justice that is a good model for the world.
"
No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ... "
In other words you do
not have the right to take the law into your own hands.
The needs for states to be able to form militias is fulfilled with current National Guard units and State Police forces, all in accordance with the other provisions of the constitution:
Message 43: This is what the
U.S. Constitution says about the armed forces and the militias:
quote:
Article I - The Legislative Branch
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Article II - The Executive Branch
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
Note that these are the only places where a militia is mentioned in the constitution or amendments and that the "Militia of the several States" are clearly units run by the states (ie - the National Guard), and that "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia" are responsibilities for congress while the "Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia" are reserved for the States, so this clearly does not apply to any
ad hoc organizations of gun happy citizens.
These clauses are clearly, imho, fulfilled with the current National Guard units and State Police forces, their training, armament and organization are all in compliance with these provisions.
An
ad hoc organization of gun happy citizens bent on vigilante justice does not meet this criteria, and thus their "right" to bear arms in such a situation is not protected by the constitution, but
Do you see something wrong with the way things currently are?
Where does society draw the line between what is appropriate and what is inappropriate?
It seems to me that the pro-gun lobby would be happy to have guns de-regulated to the point where the
american-taliban-fundamentalist-zealots can arm themselves and train to kill abortion doctors and
any other person they disagree with, simply because they have the right to bear arms.
Personally I can't see the founding fathers approving of such a situation, likewise law has always taken a dim view of vigilante justice, and all of this shows that there are rational reasons for regulation of who is allowed to use what kinds of weapons when and where.
Enjoy.
™ Version 4.2