What Sort of Restrictions Should the 2A Have?

I have a book for which I am currently searching for a publisher. I have done extensive research on the Constitution and especially extensive research on the 2nd, 10th and 14th amendments. For this research I used no books or writings of any sort from other authors. I exclusively used writings and notes of the framers and the records of congress on the amendments. I also used the ratification debates of the several states, the Federalist Papers and the Anti-federalist Papers.

My conclusion is that the founding fathers (signers of the Declaration of Independence) the framers (the guys at the Constitutional Convention) and the 1st congress (writers of the Bill of Rights) that there was to be no restrictions whatsoever on arms of any type. They never mentioned that criminals should not be allowed to have arms, but that all men should have arms so as to protect themselves from the bad guys that did have them. This was because they understood that criminals were always going to have guns because they are criminals. This was protection from the feds only. The 14th amendment came along and, after a bit of wringing and twisting by the black robes, it applies to the states now. The 14th was never intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states.

Remember this; it was not illegal for a convicted felon to purchase a firearm until the Gun Control Act of '68 was enacted. Nor was it illegal (well, you have to bow, say "pretty please may I?" and pay the gods in D.C. a $200 tax and forgo a background check now) to have select fire (fully automatic) weapons, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, suppressors or even explosives until the National Firearms Act of '34.

Another thing to remember is that Col. Andrew Jackson borrowed 3 cannons (the ultimate weapon at the time) from a family (privately owned) in Louisiana to help fight the War of 1812.

Check the ad with the cowboy in this thread.

http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-ads...from-when-we-really-had-a-free-country.

"shall not be infringed" means just that, no restrictions.

"well regulated" means well trained as in to make all troops even. The most common use of regulate during this time period was meant to "make regular or make even". Also see the commerce clause in Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 3.

My short answer to your question is NONE.

The Constituion is not a charter of rights, but a plan for a form of government. Some states refused to ratify unless an agreement was made to add a Bill of Rights at the first congress.

RB I have been meaning to contact you about the status of your book. I hope you find a publisher soon as I look forward to reading it.

Gunslinger said:

Just as case law limits the 1st Amendment, "not yell 'fire' in a crowded theater,"

Click to expand...

You very well have a right to say these things. You however must understand that with your rights comes responsibility (such as our right to bear arms, comes with responsibility, so does the rest of your rights).

You have a responsibility to deal with the consequences of doing/saying these things.. Don't for a second mistake that for a "limit" on any of your rights.

No restrictions.

This goes for every free person walking around. I don't care if you are an ex-con or a felon. If you served time and are walking around free, you get everything that goes with it. Freedom is freedom. If the corrections department thinks that maybe you shouldn't have a gun because you might be dangerous, then maybe they shouldn't be letting you out of prison in the first place.

Also, if a person believes that 'well regulated militia' somehow means that the founders supported gun control, well they've been drinking WAAAAY too much of the anti-gunner kool-aid. A cursory glance at the 2nd Amendment with even an elementary school education should be enough for most people to understand.

Cheers

mag71911 said:

I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

The only arms private citizens should be prohibited from possessing are nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons.

All conventional weapons the military uses we should also have access. One of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment exists so that the citizenry would have arms and thus the ability to fight back against an oppressive government or foreign invader.

Right now, if the government were to turn on the citizenry or if a foreign invader were to defeat our military, given the anemic arms we are now permitted to possess we wouldn’t be able to put up a significant resistance against a modern conventional military.

For instance if a citizen wanted a civilian version of today’s, conventional arms such as: heavy machine guns, hand grenades, shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, RPGs, tanks or F-22s.

1) They would have to be able to afford it.

2) Pass a psychological exam. The more destructive the weapon platform the more intense the exam. And get reexamined at requisite intervals.

3) Qualify for the requisite security clearance. Again, the more destructive or technologically advanced the weapon the higher security clearance one would need to qualify so as to ensure the civilian versions of said technology isn’t sold to our enemies, criminals, or even our friends.

4) The civilian would undergo the exact same training and qualifying and requalifying standards as the military on how to use their weapon platform. All paid for by the civilian of course.

5) Finally the civilian would have to show the government that they had the means to store and secure said weapon(s). For the larger and more deadlier arms, I’m thinking some kind of communal armory with comparable passive and active security measures on par with the military. Again all financed by the civilian or a group of them.

The aforementioned stipulations are my interpretations on the "well regulated" clause of the 2nd Amendment.

Ummm, no thanks.

buster81 said:

Ummm, no thanks.

Click to expand...

+1

nonameisgood said:

+1

Click to expand...

+2

Maybe he should be writing regulations for the feds.

eye95 said:

+2

Maybe he should be writing regulations for the feds.

Click to expand...

Ok then gentlemen, if you have a better way I would love to read your proposal. Simply saying no without offering an alternate viable solution gets us nowhere.

Explain how would you work out the details so as to keep mentally unstable or subversive citizens from indiscriminately murdering on a massive scale with military grade weaponry all while minimizing the restrictions so they still remain accessible?

Explain exactly what it is about my restrictions that are so unreasonable.

mag71911 said:

I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

Yeah Sport and that would be me. WHAT part of the Shall NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand? Because you do not understand WELL REGULATED either. In the text of the time well regulated meant well equipped and well trained. Regulations applied to self governing citizens and law abiding citizens NEVER apply to criminals because they refuse to follow laws. People like you who will trade liberty for security will soon have neither. Almost no restrictions? How about NONE, except maybe Nuclear warheads,,okay yeah they're already well controlled. Geez you make me ill.

cmdr_iceman71 said:

Ok then gentlemen, if you have a better way I would love to read your proposal. Simply saying no without offering an alternate viable solution gets us nowhere.

Explain how would you work out the details so as to keep mentally unstable or subversive citizens from indiscriminately murdering on a massive scale with military grade weaponry all while minimizing the restrictions so they still remain accessible?

Explain exactly what it is about my restrictions that are so unreasonable.

Click to expand...

Simple: Just go with the intent of the Founders. When they wrote the 2A, they were clearly talking about the typical personal weapons that a person used for civilian purposes (such as, but not limited to, hunting and self-defense) and could use as a personal military weapon if called to duty in the militia. Today's analogs would include, but would not be limited to, rifles, shotguns, handguns, and knives. It would be reasonable to regulate weapons other than these as they never were intended to be protected by the 2A.

Also, I have no problem with requiring firearms to be carried openly or with regulating and licensing concealment. Carry is the act that is protected. Concealment is not. (Of course, if you had read the thread before making your comment that we should make our own proposals, you would have read the idea in this paragraph, because I already posted it in this thread.)

On edit, and in response to another post: The full Franklin quote, with the oft-ignored (and key) parts bolded is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

cmdr_iceman71 said:

Explain exactly what it is about my restrictions that are so unreasonable.

Click to expand...

When something is not to be infringed, what does it mean to you? Well, here it is. When you have background checks or psych exams it is infringement, plain and simple. No background checks, no exams, no tests. I can not understand why some folks don't want absolute liberty. They would rather depend on the statists to protect them, and when they want restrictions on 2A, that is exactly what they are asking for, government protection.

in·fringe   /ɪnˈfrɪndʒ/ Show Spelled
[in-frinj] Show IPA
verb, -fringed, -fring·ing.
–verb (used with object)
1. to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or transgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
–verb (used without object)
2. to encroach or trespass (usually fol. by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy.
Use infringe in a Sentence
See images of infringe
Search infringe on the Web

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1525–35; < L infringere to break, weaken, equiv. to in- in-2 + -fringere, comb. form of frangere to break

—Related forms
in·fring·er, noun
un·in·fringed, adjective


—Can be confused:   infringe, impinge.


—Synonyms
1. break, disobey. 2. poach. See trespass.

World English Dictionary
infringe (ɪnˈfrɪndʒ)

— vb
1. ( tr ) to violate or break (a law, an agreement, etc)
2. ( intr; foll by on or upon ) to encroach or trespass

[C16: from Latin infringere to break off, from frangere to break]

in'fringement

— n

in'fringer

— n

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition
2009 © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins
Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009
Cite This Source

Word Origin & History

infringe

mid-15c., from L. infringere "to damage, break off," from in- "in" + frangere "to break" (see fraction). Meaning of "encroach" first recorded c.1760. Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper
Cite This Source
Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: in·fringe
Pronunciation: in-'frinj
Function: verb
Inflected Forms: in·fringed ; in·fring·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere , from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break
transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another infringed — U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH — in·fring·er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Cite This Source

eye95 said:

On edit, and in response to another post: The full Franklin quote, with the oft-ignored (and key) parts bolded is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Click to expand...

First it is not really known if that is Franklins quote.

Second all Liberty is essential and all safety is temporary. So doesn't make much difference if you leave those two words out.

eye95 said:

Simple: Just go with the intent of the Founders. When they wrote the 2A, they were clearly talking about the typical personal weapons that a person used for civilian purposes (such as, but not limited to, hunting and self-defense) and could use as a personal military weapon if called to duty in the militia. Today's analogs would include, but would not be limited to, rifles, shotguns, handguns, and knives. It would be reasonable to regulate weapons other than these as they never were intended to be protected by the 2A.

Also, I have no problem with requiring firearms to be carried openly or with regulating and licensing concealment. Carry is the act that is protected. Concealment is not. (Of course, if you had read the thread before making your comment that we should make our own proposals, you would have read the idea in this paragraph, because I already posted it in this thread.)

On edit, and in response to another post: The full Franklin quote, with the oft-ignored (and key) parts bolded is, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty, to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Click to expand...

The only weapons I mentioned in my original post that civilians should be prohibited from possessing were: nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. I wrote that all other conventional arms should be accessible.

You see, I’m not focused upon infringement of the hardware, I understand it is merely a tool. With my regulations I focus on the user, the citizen, so as to ensure that it isn’t some unscrupulous, psychotic, or inept human-being handling said weapon platform.

Thus, if someone wants a cache of stinger missiles, Light Anti-tank Weapon, 50lbs of C4, the civilian versions of an F-22 or B-2 stealth bomber loaded with bombs and missiles, or a M1 Abrams tank that’s fine with me.

Please, just don’t come crashing through my neighborhood with it and wipe out two square blocks because you don’t know how to pilot, drive, fire, or detonate it, or worse you’ve have had a psychological break and go on a rampage.

Even if a citizen were to attempt to use the weapons for their intended purpose, without the proper training they are more likely to kill themselves and or the innocents they are trying to rescue. Again, my stipulations focused on, ethical/psychological eligibility, training, proper storage/security, NOT denial to access.

It is my belief that we citizens at the very least should have access to arms that, as an aggregate, make us deadly enough to wage a nasty guerrilla war against any conventional force, much like our forbearers in the Revolutionary War. The problem is citizen's access to arms hasn't kept up with the times, we have been legally hamstrung.

Finally, I have yet to read a compelling argument against requiring a security clearance, psychological exam, and or training for the big ticket weapons that can kill hundreds in one fell swoop.

That you set a limit means that you believe there is a limit. The only question then would be, "Where is the line drawn?" The logical place is to draw the line is where the Founders drew it, as described in my post.

Under your limitation, a fuel/air bomb would be allowable. Considering that a large fuel/air bomb can do as much damage as a small nuke, there is no rational reason for where you have drawn the line.

On the other hand, where I (actually, the Founders) drew the line is rational: The 2A protects typical dual-use personal civilian/military weapons.

Finally, my interpretation (actually, the Founders') requires no 5-part explanation/regulation as does yours, just one simple standard, "Is the weapon one that is typically used by an individual for civilian purposes that can be used, in a pinch, as one's personal military weapon?" That's it.

Simplicity reveals truth. Complexity opens the door to obfuscation.

Restriction = Infringement

The very language of the ammendment prohibits restriction. The op's question is therfore invalid. A fishing expedition IMHO.

I would like to see the evidence that the framers drew a line as to what arms they were referring to. I have studied this subject extensively and have not seen any evidence that a line was drawn at all. Some on this forum and SCOTUS keep insisting that a line was drawn as to the type of weapons that 2A was referring to. I say this is in theory only, with no proof to back it up.

SHOW ME YOUR PROOF

NRAMARINE said:

Restriction = Infringement

The very language of the ammendment prohibits restriction. The op's question is therfore invalid. A fishing expedition IMHO.

Click to expand...

If you consider the amendment to mean ALL arms, you'd have a point. However that would mean laws could not be passed against the possession of weaponized anthrax. That would be silly. And it is clearly not what the Founders meant. When the context of the authorship and the intent of the Founders is explored, it is clear that they were talking about personally carried weapons with dual civilian/military purpose. Infringing on the right to own and carry such would be unconstitutional. Infringing on the ability (not the right) to possess other weapons would not constitute an infringement on the RKBA.

mag71911 said:

I have enjoyed reading this forum and have learned a lot (going into year two now).
I've noticed that many of the posters in this forum seem to be of the view that the Second Amendment should impose almost no restrictions on an individual's right to own/carry a fireram(s).
There is even one person on here who has "What part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" in his/her
signature line (come to think of it, I think this might be from a bumper sticker, as well).
As a retort, a smart-donkey might reply "What part of 'well regulated' don't you understand?"
So, what does that part of the Second Amendment mean (the "well regulated" part)?
What sort of restrictions should the 2A have, if any?
I'm honestly curious to know what everyone thinks about this.
Thanks!

Click to expand...

"Well regulated" is in a different part of the sentence and directly attached to the word militia. It is not attached to "....,the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" in any way.

I'm one of those "what part of shall not be infringed" folks. Unfortunately, I've seen what can happen with a lack of training and education on the law. Without those two things people who don't have a clue what they are doing by exercising their 2A rights will think they can do anything they want whenever they want....and they'd be wrong. We've got to educate those who wish to carry so that they understand the consequences of using deadly force as well as safety related issues. (like knowing what's beyond your target, trust me I have students fail that pop quiz every class and it opens eyes when it comes up)

eye95 said:

If you consider the amendment to mean ALL arms, you'd have a point. However that would mean laws could not be passed against the possession of weaponized anthrax. That would be silly. And it is clearly not what the Founders meant. When the context of the authorship and the intent of the Founders is explored, it is clear that they were talking about personally carried weapons with dual civilian/military purpose. Infringing on the right to own and carry such would be unconstitutional. Infringing on the ability (not the right) to possess other weapons would not constitute an infringement on the RKBA.

Click to expand...

I think it can be safely assumed that the founders had no concept of wmd's as we know them today. Furthermore, I believe their intention was to protect the right to maintain small arms and weapons of insurrection as they could forsee. For example, handguns, rifles, shotguns and edged weapons. Whether they intended for individuals to own cannon and shot for example, I rather doubt simply for the reason that this would be rather impractical for the common man, most of us wouldn't have much practical use for artillery. This would fall under the " power to raise an army" clause in my opinion. However, as it happens I know a gentleman who makes 12lb smooth bore cannons that work.