Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[Cyber Liberty]

@the_doc, regarding the level of passion on this subject, you are correct.  Most of us recognize the real and significant dangers we are facing from an extra-Constitutional and corrupt government.  And, we don't take it lightly when someone here pooh-poohs the dangers and tells us we are just imagining things.

Uh, yeah.  That's pretty much it.  Sets my teeth on edge when somebody lectures me that I can must trust the government and the courts to keep my liberties safe.  I happen to take my liberty very seriously, hence the  name.

[roamer_1]

I think that a lot of TBR folks have begun to realize this--which would explain their impassioned responses against what I confess are your seemingly reasonable posts.  I would suggest that we quit bickering on this thread and see what happens this year--probably ramping up soon.   

@the_doc

Yes to your whole post, but not really even all that...
This whole thing goes right to the root of Conservative views on government: 'A government that fears it's people' is the very root of Conservative civil-libertarianism.

We are a very far cry from Reagan's scariest words in the world: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'...

That a national registration is even discussed here is a travesty.

[Smokin Joe]

Yes. According to you... Wanna bet registration requires particular storage (safes and trigger locks, with ammo stored separately) to exclude liability?

So If I don't register them I don't need all that crap, right?

[Cyber Liberty]

So If I don't register them I don't need all that crap, right?

It would be difficult to inspect your weapons if they don't know you have them....

[roamer_1]

So If I don't register them I don't need all that crap, right?

That's how it reads from over here 

 

[Jazzhead]

@the_doc, regarding the level of passion on this subject, you are correct.  Most of us recognize the real and significant dangers we are facing from an extra-Constitutional and corrupt government.  And, we don't take it lightly when someone here pooh-poohs the dangers and tells us we are just imagining things.

You're missing the forest for the trees.   OK so you think the American government is as tyrannical as King George.  And yes, I may think that's paranoid and disrespectful of the beautiful design the Founders constructed for the preservation of "government by the consent of the governed".   

But I understand your concern.  I concede; you're not "just imagining things".

But I'm not just imagining things either.   The threat isn't to your ability to keep guns to shoot peace officers,  it's to your ability to keep guns for your personal self defense and recreation. The Second Amendment only guarantees you that right by dint of a court opinion,  one that was decided by a 5-4 majority and one of which the subject of the topic thread is the author of the dissenting opinion.

I think the weekend assignment for every person on this board should be to read Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller.   Read it and understand how the individual RKBA hangs by a thread. How it is probably,  at this point in time,  more fragile and vulnerable to being overturned than the right to abortion.

I may be the perceived enemy of most on this board,  but sometimes it is wise to listen to some cautionary advice.  Heller needs to be codified.    That should be the focused priority of gun owners,  not resistance to concerns of the citizenry that it may be sound policy to require gun owners to account for their firearms.   

I have a weekend assignment, it appears,  to answer some questions about gun registration from a member who has already said that, whatever form that registration may take, he will not comply.    Should I waste my time?    Is there anything I can say that would persuade anyone here that registration is not the prelude to confiscation?

I doubt it.  And that's because folks are "not just imagining things"  with respect to the tyranny of our Constitutional Republic.   

The only thing,  I think,  that could temper the paranoia is the knowledge that we have a Second Amendment that protects our individual right to protect ourselves.   And the Second Amendment does not do that.   Heller does.   And Heller can be gone with the political winds.   

The worry is not that a reasonable regime of registration may be legal under the Second Amendment,  but that the Second Amendment doesn't protect the individual RKBA at all.    And if the 2A affords no such protection, then the regime of registration need not be reasonable, but can be unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory. 

I support a system of registration and insurance that would ensure that Americans may own and use guns for whatever reason they want, so long as they take responsibility for them and effect transfers and dispositions by documented means.    But there's nothing I will be able to say that will counter the objection that such a reasonable regime could not be corrupted into arbitrary confiscation.   And you are correct, because the Second Amendment is defective and does not protect the natural right.   Stevens says so, explicitly.   

Only by first codifying Heller can gun owners be assured that registration and other gun control measures won't lead to confiscation. 

@Sanguine

@Meldrew     

[IsailedawayfromFR]

You're missing the forest for the trees.   

Only by first codifying Heller can gun owners be assured that registration and other gun control measures won't lead to confiscation. 

@Sanguine

@Meldrew     

So the reverse logic must apply, ie - no Heller change needed if no gun registration.

Finally I have agreement with you.

When will you be able to get around to my question on why you are not recommending to register knives which cause more deaths than guns?

[Cyber Liberty]

You're missing the forest for the trees.   OK so you think the American government is as tyrannical as King

Speaking of forests and trees...if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?  If a right exists undecided upon by a court, does it exist?  According to your logic, it does not.  Since no court has ever issued a decision on my right to play Tiddly Winks on the sidewalk in front of my house, then playing Tiddly Winks on that sidewalk is prohibited.  I think that's ass-backwards, and I think the Founders who said all rights not reserved by the government are reserved by the people would agree.

I find it amusing that in replying to @Sanguine's expression of concern about the genuine fears of infringement being pooh-pooh'ed by you, you pooh-pooh'ed her remark.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Again, and I keep coming back to this:  The federal government is not King George.  Our leaders serve with the consent of the governed, and our judicial system protects the rights of minorities and the rights of all as protected by the Constitution.

This the kind of crap that people rebel at, and why this country will always be a country of men, not laws.  You can take all that eloquence about respecting laws instead of freedom and flush it.

Federal judge rules that government has a right to make a couple sick
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,310223.0.html

[Cyber Liberty]

I think it boils down to different world views.  Are people good by nature, or bad?  Is our government malevolent or benevolent?  I think I might be cynical because I think people are bad, and the government reflects the nature of its people.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I think it boils down to different world views.  Are people good by nature, or bad?  Is our government malevolent or benevolent?  I think I might be cynical because I think people are bad, and the government reflects the nature of its people.

Since it is many times mentioned in the Bible, this is not a worldview, but a Spiritual one.

[INVAR]

OK so you think the American government is as tyrannical as King George.  And yes, I may think that's paranoid and disrespectful of the beautiful design the Founders constructed for the preservation of "government by the consent of the governed".

The amount of sheer colossal idiotic ignorance or deliberate outrageous bullshit in that statement alone is beyond astounding.

It illustrates the foundational reason WHY you sir, are not a Conservative, but rather the full display of a mind wholly devoted to Collectivism/Statism/Communism.

The Constitution was not written and ratified as a beautiful design for the preservation of government by those who consented to it's authority.

It was written and ratified because it covenanted the promise that LIBERTY WOULD BE PRESERVED, NOT GOVERNMENT - LIBERTY!  The covenant agreed to was that in order to ensure the preservation of liberty be upheld - government was to be restricted and limited to very narrow specific confines in which it was permitted to operate so as not to infringe upon or limit the liberty of the people by which they were granted by Nature's God.

'Preservation of government' my ass!

The threat isn't to your ability to keep guns to shoot peace officers,  it's to your ability to keep guns for your personal self defense and recreation.

No, wrong.  My right to keep guns is in defense of liberty from people like you who will use government to infringe upon and stomp upon the liberty of the people so you can have the illusion of peace and safety.   Unlike you, we don't trust government.  We have learned to distrust it in total.

The Second Amendment only guarantees you that right by dint of a court opinion,  one that was decided by a 5-4 majority and one of which the subject of the topic thread is the author of the dissenting opinion.

Wrong again.  My Right is guaranteed by God Whom granted it - not from some court opinion.   My right to keep and bear arms does not come from the Amendment or the Constitution.  The Constitution and the BOR existed to keep government and people like you from infringing upon and touching rights that you do not trust anyone else to have except government-approved persons allowed the privilege to exercise.

I think the weekend assignment for every person on this board should be to read Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller.   Read it and understand how the individual RKBA hangs by a thread.

I don't care what some lawyer in a black robe has to say about my 'rights' pal.  Our 'rights' do not hang by a thread except by the insistence of meddlesome tyrants who seek to turn rights into government-granted privilege.

I may be the perceived enemy of most on this board, 

You illustrate yourself as such.  Daily.

but sometimes it is wise to listen to some cautionary advice.  Heller needs to be codified.    

Why in the hell would any sane person listen to an enemy of our rights and principles about what we should do to keep them 'safe' from meddlesome tyrants like yourself?

You live your life and whole being around the whim of the courts which is apparently your god that you worship as infallible and sacrosanct once it 'rules' The rest of us do not hold as 'holy' the words some blacked-robed tyrants have rendered in opinion about what they think 'the Constitution' really means.

That should be the focused priority of gun owners, 

No.  People like YOU are the focused priority of gun owners at the moment given your advocacies of tyranny.  All you need to know is, that we will not comply with the kinds of tyranny you are suggesting become a government policy.

not resistance to concerns of the citizenry that it may be sound policy to require gun owners to account for their firearms.

Well, expect resistance, because that is ALL Leftist snowflakes deserve and that is all they are going to get. 

Is there anything I can say that would persuade anyone here that registration is not the prelude to confiscation?

No. Not unless you want to illustrate your colossal ignorance of history and human nature and reveal the depths of enmity towards our rights the you possess and seek to eradicate.

The only thing,  I think,  that could temper the paranoia is the knowledge that we have a Second Amendment that protects our individual right to protect ourselves.   And the Second Amendment does not do that.   Heller does.   And Heller can be gone with the political winds.   

But our right to arms does not.  Our rights do not come from men or constructs of men - and the 2nd Amendment codifies the promise that the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.  We do not require some ruling by a court to 'preserve' our Rights.  Those Rights are inviolable and immutable.  The moment the government attempts infringement upon our right with harebrained tyranny of the kind you have suggested, it has violated the covenant our forbears agreed to and our allegiance and obedience to such a government is no longer an obligation we will observe as we will no longer consent to their governance.

And if the 2A affords no such protection, then the regime of registration need not be reasonable, but can be unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory.

Which is what you and your Statist pals really think and really want.  We have given you fair warning of what the consequences will be when your assertion of the legality of imposing such tyranny is attempted. 

It will be time to water the tree of liberty. 

You are welcome to test our resolve.

[Cyber Liberty]

Everybody hates memes, so I'm going to post one anyway...

[Jazzhead]

Everybody hates memes, so I'm going to post one anyway...

The flaw in the meme is that you believe you had the cake in the first place.   

Heller needs to be codified.

[Jazzhead]

From my post #70 on this thread - "What is the purpose of registration if not to document ownership and location? Why would you want to help a tyranny take your rights? And even assuming you do, what do citizens get in return other than more tyranny?"

From my post #152 on this thread - "Besides the revenue possibilities, what is the utility to the state of registering and licensing cars and how would that utility be manifested by registering and licensing guns?  "

From my post #319 on this thread - "Could you please take a moment to explain how the "license and registration" that you've talked about earlier leads to the owner being "legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own" on a physical, practical basis.  I fill out a form, what's on it?  Where does that info go, a govt database? You pull a projectile from a body, how do you trace it back to the purchaser?  Is the purchaser the perp?  How do you know?  If the owner's not the perp, what's the liability? What protections are in the legislation that you admire that keep whatever data you collect from being used for confiscation or punitive taxation?  "

The purpose of registration is to link each firearm to the owner who is legally responsible for it.  With that linkage,  the incentive exists for transfers and dispositions to be documented, and stolen firearms to be reported to the police.   No one will report as stolen a firearm that's been bought off the back of a truck.

While I reject your premise that registration is a prelude to confiscation,  I acknowledge your concern given that the 2A doesn't protect your right, but only a court decision that was decided by a bare 5-4 majority.   The court decision may soon be gone with the political winds.

So there we are - my desire for reasonable regulation vs. your worry that no regulation can be reasonable because it will lead to confiscation.   I see no middle ground - unless we can first agree to codify Heller.

Let's assume, for the sake of discussion,  that the law provides for the individual RKBA as a permanent, protected condition.  With that crucial protection, a regime of registration cannot Constitutionally be a prelude to confiscation.   How would such a lawful registration regime work? 

First,  the purpose of registration must be limited to assigning a firearm to the person responsiible for its custody and care.   It must not be a tool by which government can limit or restrict the number and quality firearms one can own.  So long as you're willing to register and be legally responsible for the firearms you own, then you should be able own whatever your heart and means desire. 

Second,  the concept of legal responsibility must be narrowly defined.   The cost of such legal responsibility cannot be so onerous as to make it practically impossible to own a firearm for personal protection.  Putting aside the separate matter of criminal responsibility,  I would define legal responsibility to narrowly consist of responsibility for the medical bills and lost earnings of those persons harmed by a firearm within the legal owner's responsibility.  That's it.  Nothing more.  That is similar in some respects to PIP protection mandated by many states' motor vehicle registration/insurance regimes.   

Third,  the conditions must be created for the establishment of an insurance market that gunowners can access to protect themselves from legal liability at reasonable cost.  I would not mandate the purchase of such insurance, but it is unConstitutional to impose potentially ruinous financial responsibility on the exercise of the gun right.   That is why legal responsibility must be both limited and insurable.  As is the case with employers who establish employee benefit plans under the federal law known as ERISA,   a victim of gun violence should be strictly prohibited from being able to recover punitive damages and other extraordinary damages such as compensation for pain and suffering.   Just documented medical bills and lost earnings.  Maybe a simple no fault system will work.   It is crucial to create a liability regime that is not a feast for lawyers. 

Because the owner's legal responsibility is both limited and insurable,  the question of how to assign liability when the owner is not the perp can be addressed.   IMO, the owner should be strictly liable for the LIMITED, INSURABLE damages described above for any harm caused by a firearm for which he is responsible, until the first to occur of the date that registration of the firearm is transferred to another in a documented sale or exchange,  the date the owner otherwise reliquishes ownership in a documented manner, or the date the firearm is reported as stolen to the authorities. 

Pings as requested:  @Meldrew  @Sanguine   

[mountaineer]

Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead.    Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.

[Bigun]

Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead.    Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.

   and 

And arguing with a guy who argues in circles is beyond boring!

[Elderberry]

Heller needs to be codified.

Does this mean that a Federal Law needs to be written in order to "Codify" the "Heller Decision"?

Or are you saying that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" , The right that is Not to be Infringed, is to be Codified into Federal Law?

[txradioguy]

[Jazzhead]

Does this mean that a Federal Law needs to be written in order to "Codify" the "Heller Decision"?

Or are you saying that " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" , The right that is Not to be Infringed, is to be Codified into Federal Law?

The right (to individual self defense) is a natural right;  the issue is whether the Constitution protects that right vis a vis the federal government.   

The Second Amendment's predicate clause has long called into question whether it protects an individual RKBA outside the context of a militia.   Stevens says flatly that it does not.   Scalia and a narrow court majority held that it does.   My point is that the text of the 2A is defective if it only protects the individual RKBA because a 5-4 decision says it does.    A decision that the left seeks to overturn just as surely as the right seeks to overturn Roe v Wade.

The composition of the Supreme Court has been a political football the last 40 years.   I don't think that's a good thing.  Should your right to keep a gun to protect your family be dependent on whether the Dems win the White House in 2020?   

But that is a very likely reality.   Ideally, the text of the Second Amendment itself should be modified.   Less ideally,  but still better than doing nothing,  is the passage of a federal law that statutorially recognizes ("codifies") the right to keep arms for self-defense of person and property, and the level of scrutiny to be applied to laws that regulate that right. 

Such a law can and should be passed by a Republican Congress while there is still time.       

[Elderberry]

My point is that the text of the 2A is defective if it only protects the individual RKBA because a 5-4 decision says it does.

You may believe "your point", but from the replies I have read, it does not appear that a single person agrees with your point.

I am not convinced that your point is valid.

[Cyber Liberty]

The flaw in the meme is that you believe you had the cake in the first place.   

Heller needs to be codified.

Can't.  I'm busy codifying the right to play Tiddly Winks wherever I want.

The thing about the cake is exactly what cake thieves say anyway.  "Just bake the damned cake," is my reply.

Today is not a day of circle-arguments for me, so I won't be around much.

[Cyber Liberty]

Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead.    Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.

As my old boss used to say, "A dog will sniff a tree."

[INVAR]

Come on, everybody, this horse is beyond dead.    Restating the same argument over and over is, well, repetitious.

  and 

And arguing with a guy who argues in circles is beyond boring!

Arguing in circles is what tyrannical policy wonks and the priesthood of lawyers do to justify the tyranny they intend to shove down our throats by any means they can conjure. There is no reasoning with such people.  They have an agenda to push - and they will argue their viewpoint until we tire of arguing with them, and then they take the field.

Sadly, this horse of Gun Rights is NOT dead.  Ignoring the insidious ideas being offered as *reasonable* and *necessary* by our resident Leftist and tyrants like him because they are regarded as 'boring' and 'repetitious', surrenders the battlefield of liberty to them, and then their tyrannical ideas become "law" and policy because they keep pushing the populace and then the legislatures or the courts to accept their arguments.

They need to be confronted, and their ideas shredded into the excrement they are, so that when they make their way to some idiotic representative in a legislature or some lawyer arguing to a court - you and I have the ability to articulate a defense and argument against them, BEFORE it becomes necessary to water the tree of liberty.

But I am becoming increasingly convinced that watering that tree is inevitable now in the very near future.  People like our resident antagonist and the morons like him in government are going to make that last mistake, and then we either water the tree of liberty, or we and our posterity will have been subjugated into tyranny without so much as a whimper.

[Meldrew]

@Jazzhead

Thank you for taking the time to compose this response.  Good of you to do this especially on a holiday weekend.  Just a couple quick points:

Your ultimate position is rather circular. We need a law, and possibly a rewrite of the Second Amendment to ensure that the courts won't ignore the law like they did the last one. 

The new law just assigns ownership and responsibility.  Though we pretend we don't have a defacto registration now, law enforcement seems to have little trouble figuring out who bought what gun where and often leaks it to the media within hours.  And it does technically have yet to be demonstrated that law abiding gun owners are shirking responsibility to the level that requires them to be mandated to be responsible.  Most folks pay for the damage caused by their negligent discharges I should think. 

Your call for insurance "that gunowners can access to protect themselves from legal liability at reasonable cost " already exists in a small way - e.g. NRA Carry Guard and USCCA.  That program just started last year but is already being described by the left as "murder insurance".  It's not clear to me that even if that insurance became more readily available that the left would let us keep it (kinda like the way they tangentially infringe the First Amendment). 

  I see no middle ground - unless we can first agree to codify Heller.

And there's the rub. As @INVAR 's epic post #422 points out as well as posts by @Cyber Liberty , @txradioguy @Sanguine make pretty clear this is the issue that needs to be ameliorated.  I don't believe in the law as the final backstop against tyranny and I don't think the founders did either.  The efforts by you and others in your profession to strengthen those laws are likely necessary and certainly appreciated but they are not the definitive end to the "struggle" for our 2A rights. That probably ain't happenin' on this thread. 

Happy Easter!