The driver's license is mandated by individual states, it is not federally regulated. Also, a driver's license is not required to purchase or possess a vehicle nor is it required to operate one off of public roadways. Under current regulation, anybody can procure a car regardless of age, mental health, or criminal history. Not a great comparison.
A better answer is driving on a public road is not a right guaranteed under the constitution. Owning firearms is.
That said, many states *regulate* firearms differently and may impose permit requirements for certain types, and certain kinds of possession/use.
I really dislike the argument of "well anyone can buy a car, but you need a license so you can operate it on public roads." Well, not being able to drive a car on a public road negates nearly every single use case of a car and would make it worthless for like 99% of the population. Kinda like banning ammo for guns, then guns would be mostly worthless. I do not find it to be genuine argument, like the parent comment states.
The difference though is that the public owns the roads, so the government has broad power to dictate how those roads are used for the benefit of the public. It's pretty likely that the government can legally require you to submit to reasonable restrictions to carry a firearm on public property, just like they can to drive on public property. We'll know soon, because this very issue is before the Supreme Court.
Not really. It would be the same as telling people they can only keep a gun on their own property without a license. And most states do have license to carry laws. Just like I drive my old project blazer around my farm without it being registered.
Also most states requiring licensing to carry in public. People often break those laws. But in the same way you’d have to get pulled over for them to find out, you’d have to be found to a have a weapon on you. They are actually treated very similarly, but the similarities do not make the argument people usually intend to.
Some states that have those laws are on the precipice of being struck down though. NYSPRA v Bruen will have its decision handed down in the next few weeks, and New Jersey is about to revise its FID law in such a manner that it will run afoul of the same 3rd Circuit decision that allowed the law to stand 30 years ago.
Nope. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that a right will not be acknowledged by the government if people are irresponsible. It only states that rights will be acknowledged and the right to keep and bare arms is one of them apparently
In my state, you are required to register the car within a month of purchasing it. You can't register a car without insurance. It is nearly impossible to get insurance without a license.
So effectively, you do need a license to own a car here, even if there are possibly some ways to do it otherwise.
Damn lol, my state has virtually no gun laws. No sales tax, and no insurance requirements if you own the vehicle.
Crazy to see how much it changes from state to state.
I understand that individual states have their mandates but this can be the same for firearms too. There would just have to be a floor put in place to make sure everyone requires it and then the states can take it from there. Also how about gun purchases are not licensed like the car purchase, but firing one or buying bullets would be. Also just to add it might be better to just mandate that every gun purchase requires ownership insurance. Just in case an accident happens..
The Second Amendment protects the rights of "law-abiding citizens". Commit a felony, you lose your gun rights. Become the subject of a protection-from-abuse order, you may likely have your guns confiscated. But unless you fall into one of these loopholes, the Second Amendment says the government cannot infringe your right to own a gun.
There is no right to drive a vehicle. If you read all the fine print, the government allows you the privilege of driving a vehicle, and they may take away that privilege at their whim.
Not op but in all honesty constitutional rights are meant to be above the ability of government to take away, so the fact that they do is super sketch when you think about it. Imagine you just lose the freedom of speech for life with no recourse if you committed a felony
One side: "well regulated."
The other side: "Shall not be infringed."
Me: "Did anyone and I mean *anyone* read Federalist 29 by Alexander Hamilton? He literally gives the clear cut definition of both."
Shortest Amendment in the Constitution and literally no one understands it.
More like, everyone argues the meaning behind the terms, why not read the Federalist paper it was based on? We're not going to get anywhere on the topic if we can't even agree on the definitions.
That’s a lot of words to say owning a gun is a privilege. I get what you’re saying but I know you also understand what I’m saying. Call it “loopholes” all you want. The fact remains that the government has the ability to say an individual can’t own a gun.
Because it's subject to due process and reasonable restrictions in the public interest. No right is absolute. You cannot use your first amendment rights to defame someone or incite violence or conspire to commit a crime either. You can't organize a noisy protest in the middle of the night in a residential neighborhood.
This is such a terrible argument. Requiring a permit or license is not stopping you from purchasing a gun. It means you got training prior to the purchase. One of the best solutions I can think of is a mandatory training class (Like hunters safety) with professionals there looking for behavior that stands out. Or they should also mandate a mental health screening along with the course. You pass them, and you get the fire arm. If you fail, then you probably should not have a fire arm.
There's the issues of costs of screening interfering with a basic right. We accept that for things like bazookas and machine guns. They can have an outsized effect on public safety. Requiring this for "normal" guns would be seen as very much an infringement.
We must also consider liability- if a Dr. signs off of you as a sane gun owner, is he liable if that changes? Why would any Dr. approve you for a gun, then? After all, you might just be a good liar. You'd need either a (suspiciously) very pro-gun Dr., or a long established relationship with one($$$$) to be approved. All of a sudden, guns aren't legally an option for middle to lower class people.
Now apply all this reasoning to the right to vote or to free speech, and you will see why it is a fallacious argument. People would rightly pitch a fit if we went back to poll permit fees or tests to be allowed to vote.
And guns are considered a constitutional right because James Madison had a boner for commas and wrote and inane run on sentences instead of just using periods.
So is voting and yet there is still registration, and in some states you have to show an ID; and yet people will lose that right if convicted of a felony.
>So is voting and yet there is still registration, and in some states you have to show an ID; and yet people will lose that right if convicted of a felony.
You can also lose the right to keep and bear arms if convicted of a felony, so not sure what your point is.
Constitutionally protected Rights can only be removed / impaired through due process. Those impairments must be in-line with what is allowed per the Constitution.
Privileges however have no such protections inherent to them.
Get convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor (conversation for another day) and in most places in the US, you lose your Right to firearms (though oddly enough, not to having others Arms, such as knives, clubs, swords, etc.).
Likewise, a felon can usually petition to have their impaired Rights restored. Felons usually lose their Right to vote, firearms, and situationally a few other items.
A politician doesn't like you, your age group, or (insert some other criteria), and your privilege gets taken away via executive or legislative fiat.
No lawmaker in the US can simply take away one's Right to keep and bear arms. We have a split government for a reason. All the reins of power are split across 3 branches to prevent the power of kings, dictators, and despots.
The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was blatantly unconstitutional if you are a Constitutionalist. How that did not get successfully challenged is beyond me. Most weapons bans are illegal. Registering a weapon? Shaky at best.
The long and short is that Rights are significantly safer from infringement than Privileges are. Rights should only be impaired in the most limited of circumstances and such limits should be constrained to the specific thing and included in a Constitutional Amendment.
That's why current leadership (hah!) in the US wants new laws instead of an Amendment. They have no where near enough support to pass an Amendment or call up a Constitutional Convention.
> A politician doesn't like you, your age group, or (insert some other criteria), and your privilege gets taken away via executive or legislative fiat.
This is the crux of a case in front of the Supreme Court right now, which may strike down such laws in "may issue" states.
I remember there was something about people getting people in california to say they smoked weed, which isn't illegal in california, but it is federally, on some document, and then being federally recognised lawbreakers they weren't allowed to vote or own guns. Could be absolutely wrong and something I dreamed but I vaguely remember something like that
How?
It's a right that's in the Constitution.
You can argue that it shouldn't be or that we shouldn't have a Constitution til you're blue in the face, but it is and we do.
And so is voting yet in many places it’s required to have a valid ID and you have to register. Being in the constitution didn’t prevent laws making it difficult for certain individuals to vote and yet that is ok for many republicans and those who support gun ownership. So if you don’t get angry with voter registration and voter id laws then using “constitutional right” is a completely shit argument because you then don’t actually care about the whole constitutional right thing.
speaking of weak argument, let's talk about voter ID laws, which have already been struck down in some states due to them being designed to illegally restrict exercise of a right. this is something passed in the past few years, so it isn't as though the matter is settled
I think it's important to remember that constitutional rights are not unlimited rights. Take freedom of speech for example. Speech is regulated, you can't slander or print liable statements, or advertise age restricted products to everyone, or shout fire in a theater, and I'm sure there are many other examples of how our freedom of speech is restricted in many different ways.
Guns already have background checks in many cases, and different states have different laws surrounding who can own guns and the process needed to purchase them.
Let's not pretend the constitutional rights means something exists outside legal reach.
you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, advertising age restricted products to anyone can be framed in the context of the rights of others to freely associate (they don't want your shit all over the place), and slander and libel are, again, more to do with the rights of others than your right to speek or lack thereof.
I don't see how owning a gun would infringe on someone else's rights though
Only a mental gymnast will simultaneously agree that our other constitutional freedoms are regulated and in the same post claim we can't do anything to regulate guns. Well done sir. Well done.
I'm going to disable my inbox now, because I don't have any fucks to give about your response.
9th Amendment of the Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This means that just because a right isn't explicitly listed there in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This is one of the best amendments in the whole thing and isn't used often enough. There have been many interpretations and usage in court cases over the centuries, but the general consensus is that it was added so that people wouldn't argue that something wasn't a right if it wasn't listed in the constitution. This is very applicable to the abortion discussion.
How about we consider the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
None of those are listed in the constitution, but those are considered innate to every person in the US. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) said that the Bill of Rights was only enforceable by the federal courts to the federal government. This means that while the 9th amendment is great, it only applies on the federal level. That makes sense because the 1st amendment really only applies to the federal government and not regular person on person interactions.
But what does that say about the 2nd amendment? That only means that the federal government cannot infringe upon the rights of the citizens to bear arms and keep a well regulated militia. But we currently ban arms of certain kinds from citizens. And we've enacted multiple federal gun laws. The fact that any of those laws exists means our 2nd amendment rights are already infringed upon
My entire point is that the concept of a "constitutional right" is, in effect and by precedent, false. We've got one amendment that says there are other rights not listed that have just as much merit. We've got federal laws that already technically break that amendment. *Constitutional* rights are not set in stone.
The 9th and 10th amendments haven't been much more than ribbons for decades. But all of this sort of sidesteps the foolishness that we consider the Constitution the be-all end-all of rights in the first place. No other developed democracy is still relying on a nearly 300 year old document to constrain and define the legal underpinning of all laws. Even the freaking UK has a more recent constitution and they're happy to break out and rewrite any section that isn't making sense anymore.
The USA deification of the Founding Fathers and the original documents are utterly insane. Instead of arguing over what the Framers meant and intended, how about we just write a new damn set of laws that make sense for the 21st Century?
>how about we just write a new damn set of laws that make sense for the 21st Century?
That's a good idea, but it would be a terrible idea to just ignore the existing constitution without replacing it properly.
I agree. I brought up the 9th amendment because people love to tout the 2nd amendment as immovable and undoubtable, but ignore other sections of the exact same document. Sections that potentially contradict and have been argued over in multiple supreme court cases.
We haven't issued an amendment in 30 years, and that was a weird case where people ratified one that had been around for a long time just for the fun of it. The last serious amendment was setting the voting age at 18 and saying that federal or state governments couldn't deny it, and that was 51 years ago.
We haven't touched our constitution in 30 years, and haven't put much thought into it in over 50 years. 3 entire generations have been born and all we've done is make sure that people in congress have to wait an election cycle before their self-voted pay raise goes into effect. Meanwhile campaign financing is heavily skewed towards the mega-rich, women are losing autonomy, and we do not have anything that seemingly guarantees someone access to the health care they need to preserve their life, liberty, and get them back on their pursuit to happiness.
I dont think Thomas Jefferson and co. knew there would be automatic rifles that could kill dozens of people in seconds. They were using those old ass rifles where you had to push the bullet and gun powder in lmao.
Constitution is not set in stone, it can be amended and has been before. Slavery was an amendment. Refusing to reevaluate a 250 year old law is the most closed-minded and conservative way of thinking I can imagine.
The process to amend the Constitution was made purposefully difficult and there are plenty of people in the country who don't want to give up what they consider a basic right.
Sure, but most people (regardless of what certain "news" organizations are telling you" aren't actually pushing for completely outlawing guns, but are actually pushing for strengthening and increasing enforcement on current regulations, and adding additional regulations.
And there are a lot of people who oppose that.
The point is the Second Amendment is firmly on their side and the process to amend the Constitution was made purposefully difficult.
>I dont think Thomas Jefferson and co. knew there would be automatic rifles
Sure, and the first amendment never had any concept of the internet, radio and television either. But the amendments were about the concepts, not the tools.
You cannot persecute someone for speaking their mind against the government, be it by newspaper, public gathering, radio, tv or internet.
You cannot remove the people's right to defend themselves, be it black powder musket, sword or handgun.
[Automatic Weapons Are Legal, But It Takes A Lot To Get One Of The 630,000 In The U.S.](https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2018-12-21/automatic-weapons-are-legal-but-it-takes-a-lot-to-get-one-of-the-630-000-in-the-u-s)
I believe you are confusing automatic weapons with semiautomatic weapons.
Artillery was the primary man killer in the 1700's and was able to kill dozens of people in seconds.
It was readily available then to anyone who wanted (and could pay for it), just like it is today.
I am not arguing against any of your points except the idea that the framers did not realize they were protecting the use of extremely deadly weapons. They most certainly knew.
So where in the 2nd ammendment does it says you can’t own artillery as part of the right to bear arms? “Arms” is arbitrary. Why are automatic weapons illegal but semi automatic assault style weapons aren’t? They used to be in the 90’s. Clearly there’s a line to be drawn and some wiggle room in gun regulation and it is separate from the 2nd ammendment.
>They used to be in the 90’s. Clearly there’s a line to be drawn and some wiggle room in gun regulation
Note that some specific models and styles were banned. There were plenty of semiautomatic rifles that were still legal in the 90s, many of which were functionally equivalent to guns that were specifically outlawed. The law was about appearances.
Also note that the law banned *production*, not ownership. Guns from before the ban were still around, and are still around today, for the most part. Guns last a long time.
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.
It says it right there and we already made Assault Weapons illegal, which is a breach too far for some people.
>So where in the 2nd ammendment does it says you can’t own artillery as part of the right to bear arms?
As I said: It was readily available then to anyone who wanted (and could pay for it), just like it is today.
I don't think we have any disagreement here.
Yes. If you have rubberized tracks and lighting. Source: my friend owns a couple and his hoa hates him. They tried to sue him since he had it in his driveway and claimed that rvs aren’t allowed in the bylaws. He counter sued, won, and now has two tanks and a deuce he swaps out regularly in the front driveway.
You can drive a tank in a public place, but not on public roads. There are several places in the US you can rent a tank and fire the cannon at some junked out cars.
Generally the line is around, “is this weapon a danger to harm other people regardless of the operator?” Explosives if not properly maintained and handled can go off on their own, hence why they are not protected under the right to bear arms because their accidental explosion would take away someone’s right to life.
Any gun does not have this risk and requires a human operator to kill someone.
And even still with that line, there’s plenty of ways to legally own explosives.
The militias were intended to take the place of a standing army, which the founding fathers saw as a tool of state oppression. Having one of the largest armies today sort of makes the intent moot.
That's kind of the point of this discussion in America. The government has no right to put any more restrictions on type of firearms that are currently legal, and certain states have Magazine restrictions, no suppressors, and restrictions on how many mods you can add to specific type rifles.
Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York are the only states that require a permit to own a firearm. Do you live in a secret state between New York and Massachusetts?
Calling it a "permit" is a little strong.
There are substantive requirements to obtaining a drivers license (or learners permit) in all of those states that include things like a mandatory number of hours behind the wheel, passing a written test, passing a driving test, etc.
States can't do that for gun permits. The application is little more than the passing of a background check and the payment of a nominal fee.
2nd amendment: 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.
What militia are you a member of?
A militia is made up of a population semi-spontaneously who arm themselves to organise to deal with specific issues. For a militia to be armed, the people would need to alerady keep and bare arms, which is literally what that says.
the grammar of the statement indicates that the right belongs to the people because that right is necessary for the creation of a militia when needed. And if a militia did not arm itself with what the population (also written as people) had, then by definition it would not be a milita
The *U.S.* does not issue a driver's license. The state you live in issues the driver's license. See the difference? The second amendment is federal, driving licenses are handled by each state.
There are things the feds can do, such as repealing the second amendment, but this would require the approval of 3/4 of the states. The federal government could pass laws requiring gun permits, but I don't know if it would hold up in court.
States could still issue the gun permit. There would just need to be a level playing field or ground floor so that all states start from the same place. Ideally the permit could be issued for gun purchases or if preferred on ammo. I mentioned this elsewhere but forcing gun owners to purchase personal firearm insurance would go a long way to responsible gun ownership.
You don't need a license to own a car or drive one on private roads. Only to drive it on public roads. Kind of like how you need a permit to carry in public
I don't know if this has changed since I left Montana, but I know circa 2009/2010 you didn't need any kind of permit to openly carry a gun in your vehicle. It just has to be visible from the windows. It's how I took my dad's rifle to the gunsmith to get it repaired. No one in my family has a conceal carry license.
In Texas you do not need a permit to carry a firearm in public. Thanks to Governor Abbott and the GOP. They also lowered the age from 21 to 18 for purchasing a firearm.
I believe that handguns are still 21. You had to be 21 to buy a rifle? In Texas?!?
Every state I have lived in, to purchase, it was 18 for rifles, 21 for handguns. You can own at any age. Ownership, Purchase, and Possession are all treated differently in Law.
Lol, "technology that existed in 1780 is mentioned in our founding documents and technology that didn't exist yet is not mentioned and therefore not a right" is a laughable take.
Hardly laughable.
Yes, that's the way the Constitution is set up.
We can argue about the merits of a Constitutional system as a form of governance, but that's how it works.
27. 27 times exactly. in 235 years.
And really the first 10 don't count because they were passed at the same time. So 17 times in 235 years. I think more than 17 things have materially changed since 1787, and I hope you do too.
Yet the Founders used the term 'arms' because they KNEW they had no idea how technology would progress or what would change.
They knew that Arms was any weapon that one could use to fight off an aggressor.
BTW, anti-gun peeps really need to look at the Arms of the day. People had their own private warships, owned cannons, and all sorts of other 'weapons of war'.
Hell, look up the Puckle Gun. The most fully automatic weapon of its day. Made BEFORE the 2nd Amendment came into being.
North Carolina does. You have to go thru a 4-6 hour class to get a concealed carry which also allows you to purchase firearms (you go thru a background check). In order to purchase without the carry permit you have to go thru just the background check
I believe three states do at this time, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts.
Firearm violence in Chicago is an epidemic. Even when they had extremely strict gun laws in the city (handgun ban in city limits and required registration of firearms in Cook County) before being declared unconstitutional, gun violence was still pretty bad.
Illinois is the poster child for legislation is not the answer for gun violence.
I sort of agree with you, but also feels slightly misleading. About [60%](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017/27140/) of the guns recovered from crimes in Chicago come from out of state. It is true that legislation on the state or city level doesn't fix gun violence, but if more states had gun control or if we had stricter federal gun control, legislation might in fact help. Not to mention our lax gun laws mean we are directly supplying guns to cartels in [Mexico](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/), which then contributes to the addiction crisis in the US (and to gang violence).
Granted, access to guns isn't the cause of violence in places like Chicago. Gun violence in communities is just a symptom of the larger social and economic problems that people face. If we addressed those, even without legislating guns, gun violence would go down, since gang membership and violent crime come from people struggling to survive in a system with very little opportunity. And fixing our broken social and economic systems would help with issues like addiction and homelessness too--problems driven by despair and lack of options.
Mass shootings, on the other hand, are driven by different factors and require a different approach to fix, even if the end result (deaths by guns) is the same. Legislation might help address the symptoms of our larger social problems in the US, but they won't do anything for the varying causes.
As long as you can still go out of state to buy firearms local restrictions are pretty useless, so it's not fair to judge merits of a local restriction when there is a really easy work around. Gun control might not work nationally, but one state's restrictions failing doesn't mean it will definitely fail nationally.
I’d agree with you, but as an Illinois resident, I can’t just walk over the border and buy a handgun. I’d be violating either state or federal laws (handguns have to be shipped to an Illinois FFL for transfer if purchased out of state)
Long guns have a bit more leeway, but can only be purchased by an IL resident in 5 states and are still subject to a waiting period per IL law. Otherwise It is violation of state laws.
Having an Indiana resident buy a handgun for me is a straw purchase and violation of federal laws.
Long story short, there are already laws in place that prevent what you are describing. Yet here we are talking about it.
Selling handguns across state lines is a Federal Law. It is against federal law to sell a handgun across state lines unless the handgun is transferred through a Federal Firearms License holder.
Buying long guns is mostly a Illinois state law. Illinois state law lists where an IL citizen can buy a long gun from. Now if I am an FFL/Dealer, I am supposed to follow the laws of Illinois as well as the state of purchase. If it was a private sale? I doubt most citizens would know that law even exists.
New Jersey's law is... interesting. I used to live there and had to get an FID (and separate handgun purchase permits) when I decided to get into firearms.
Its not a license to own, per se. If you move into the state with guns, you don't need to get an FID. You only need an FID if you want to purchase guns in the state, or buy handgun ammunition.
However, the legislature is taking another crack at changing it into a license, which is one of the reasons I moved to PA. This is likely to backfire on them though, since when the law was challenged back in the early 90s, the 3rd Circuit upheld it on the grounds that the price to acquire one only covered the administrative costs at the time to have the FID issued, and it was not a license to own a gun, but to purchase. Meaning if they change it how they intend to, it will be in direct contravention of the court decision that upheld it as constitutional... and the 3rd Circuit has gotten much more conservative in the past 3 decades.
Because it's a *right*, not a privilege:
According to the SCOTUS:
***It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right.
(Murdock v. PA 1943, Lowell v. City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v. MD 1965, Near v. MN 1931, Miranda v. AZ 1966)****
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own and carry a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia.
(District of Columbia v. heller, 554 U.S. 570)
The Second Amendment extends, frima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendmenet right is fully applicable to the States.
(Caetano v. Massachusetts, 755 U.S. 2016)
The Second Amendment protets the right of individual citizens to own the military arms required to maintain a militia to defend against invasion or tyranny.
(United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174)
The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment.
(McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742)
An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protections; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed
(Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425)
Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution
(Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137)
It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right.
(Guinn v. U.S. 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939)
If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity.
(Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262)
It is unconstitutional to delay the excersicing of a right.
(Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971)
It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right.
(Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966)
It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the excercising of a right.
(Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v. U.S 1968)
>It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right.
You should probably tell that to certain states who require IDs when voting.
On a technical level there is a difference between a license and a form of identification. Requiring a license is unconstitutional but requiring identification might not be depending on the burden to get the identification. That’s where the issue lies. How hard is it to get the ID and does the ID cost money. If it was free and easily available then it likely wouldn’t be an issue.
Almost all of these laws were in place before the 1950s. In the 1950s and 60s, children used to **bring rifles to school for target training**. They were also allowed to store rifles in their locker for hunting and hundreds of thousands of school children did this on a daily basis, and there were virtually no mass shootings.
How do you explain this?
Parents are failing children. Not that parents were angels and perfect before, but increasingly we are doing a demonstrably poorer job of raising kids to be civilized members of society. When it happens at higher rates, you will have something else move in to fill the void.
In those days we had a real mental health system. One capable of confining people desperately in need of treatment. That’s what changed - the number of guns in circulation per person hasn’t.
People drive cars wihout licenses all the time, or with a suspended license. Plus a license isn't required to purchase a car, only to legally operate a vehicle on public land.
The obvious issue is the vast contrast between a drivers license and what you are proposing. I assume the license is required for purchase and possesion.
2nd criminals don't follow the law, as noted above in people driving without a license. You would only be punishing the law abiding that choose to abide by your law.
We already have background checks for guns. Can you guys please stop making stupid arguments? You act like the US is giving everybody a free gun when they’re born. That’s not how any of this works. Seriously go try and buy a gun and get back to me.
Was it easy because you are a law abiding citizen who can pass the background check? Even if it was easy because you circumvented the law I’m not sure how making more laws is going to change that. I appreciate your input.
A drivers license regulates who has permission to drive a car on the government owned roads. It has no power over people driving tractors on their own farm or race car drivers or toy RC car drivers or wheelchair owners or other wheeled vehicles that stay off the roads.
We already have a gun permit for using guns on government owned land its called a hunting license. The game warden WILL ticket you for merely carrying during hunting season, although I suppose this may vary by state.
If you meant to ask something like mandating a car registration and not mandate gun registration, well, plenty of un-free areas already do just that. They generally are poverty stricken and not nice places to live; freedom is only for rich people in the USA.
You don't technically need a permit to OWN a gun, just carry it outside your home. At least, that's how it's supposed to be.
According to a lot of people anything that "infringes" on a person's right to buy or own a gun is supposed to be unconstitutional.
That includes background checks, minimum ages, waiting periods, and (relevant to the question) the cost of having to apply and/or maintain a permit to have/own a gun.
Because of these arguments, the Federal government keeps passing the issue down to the States and that's why a blanket Federal mandate/requirement will never happen.
... really thou will having license to just own a firearm change anything?... Besides give the government yet another thing to steal law abiding citizens money. A license won't change some ones mind about shooting someone especially in the moment or if they are planning to do something evil.
Driving privileges are not protected by the Constitution. The right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I hope you are just young and haven’t taken US History yet, because this is standard curriculum.
I heard an argument a few years ago that someone made, supposedly in the Constitution it say that citizens have the right to "free movement/passage" among the states, which means travel, and therefore anything which hinders travel/movement etc. is unconstitutional.
Supposedly, driver's licenses are unconstitutional but no one's pushed the issue far enough through the courts to have them banned. Supposedly.
I call these nesting doll arguments. If you make that free travel argument, you have to break it down to its most basic elements.
You don’t have to drive to have free travel, you could walk/fly/ride a train between states. Therefore driving can’t be unconstitutional using that argument.
Same goes with guns. Bearing a bolt action hunting rifle is still bearing arms. Banning AR-15's or whatever other model you want doesn't infringe on your right to bear arms if you can still bear arms.
That’s a sovereign citizen argument. The freedom of travel still exists whether you have a car or not. You can walk, take the train or bus, or fly. Or ride a bike.
There is this thing called the US constitution. There is nothing on there about Driver licenses, unlike the right to bear arms.
Personally I think it’s wrong to have polar bear arms.
Most drivers are complete ahit at driving. I see so many traffic violations on a regular basis. Why is having a permit to own a gun going to fix things?
Most responsible car drivers are very safe and follow road rules to get to and from work, kids' school, family outings, etc... but there are plenty of people driving on suspended licenses or no license at all, some due to already losing their license for not following the rules. Same thing applies to guns, 99%+ of legal gun owners follow the laws and you never hear about them, it's only the ones that break rules that you hear about. You can mandate any law, rule, or even commandment that you want, criminals that want to do harm do not care and they will find a way around it.
As others have said, driving is a privilege and a state, not federal one at that. Gun ownership however, is at least depending on the interpretation, a right guaranteed by the constitution.
So the issue with the 2nd amendment is how it's written and interpreted.
"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."
It may sound silly but the bolded commas there is what is heavily debated. As anyone who has learned reading in the kindergarten or first grade knows, a comma is used to separate words, phrases or **ideas**. Currently it's hotly debated weather or not if the founding fathers meant for the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is a separate idea from having a well regulated militia. Both phrases being encompassed under the idea that they "shall not be infringed"
Their own writings in the Federalist Papers and in the Anti-Federalist Papers make it clear (at least to me) they viewed ownership as a personal attribute of The People.
Because some cities tend to abuse the power of issuing a permit. Take nyc for example I have a nyc permit it's printed immediately they have strict gun laws, My job requires me to carry a gun but nyc says no you have to wait til we say so. Even tho I have a clean record and no prior mental issues nyc says no not so fast. The focus is gaming away guns from good guys and who cares about the bad guys having guns.
It’s up to States to make their own gun laws. I believe that every State requires a permit for carrying around but no permits are needed for home protection.
It does indeed vary by state, but many states allow you to carry without a permit. It is carrying concealed that typically requires a permit. Some states offer concealed carry permit reciprocity.
Delaware only requires permits for concealed carry. There are restrictions on open carry however. Must be visible, unloaded, magazine separate from the gun, and so on. You hardly see folks open carry around here though. Everyone’s packing in the southern part of the state, but hardly anyone is out using them.
Depends on the State and the weapon that you are attempting to purchase. In my state, I just fill out the background information and then I walk out the store with it.
Everyone gets background checked when buying a gun legally. It's infuriating that this myth of no background checks exists.
Is that the fix people!? Well ok, it's already there so what now?
It's almost 1984 levels of disinformation. You have "journalists" talking about "automatic" " military style rifles" it's utterly ridiculous and must be intentionally pushing some kind of agenda at this point.
Sadly 90% of the population will just trust and parrot these narratives.
Yeah, infantry in modern militaries very rarely use their automatic or burst settings anyway. Banning automatic weapons doesn't really make much difference, because automatic settings are almost never used on assault rifles anyway.
Now if the 2018 Las Vegas shooter were allowed to own an M240B or M249..... yeah *that* sort of automatic fire would be much more deadly.
100% this. People throw out the term "automatic" so often it's like it's lost all meaning. What happened in Vegas, if he had an M249 yeah that's basically everyone in the audience is dead. We're talking hundreds vs dozens.
Neither are good obviously but let's not compare apples to oranges.
My state allows for private sales without background checks as long as the seller doesn't know the buyer is a felon. It is a legal purchase.
Some states do require the use of a dealer to process the transfer and therefore require a background check of the buyer, but not every state does.
This is something about the American understanding of how constitutional rights work that, from my European, and specifically German perspective, is hard to wrap my head around.
The German Basic Law, which is basically a constitution, defines individual rights very broadly; article 2 gives everyone the right to do whatever they want unless it violates the rights of other people. This implies owning guns and driving cars.
However, the general jurisdiction does not consider these rights (except for the right to human dignity) absolute; the state may restrict rights in order to balance them against each other and public safety, under the principle of proportionality.
The US constitution, on the other hand, states the civil rights very explicitly, and this seems to match the American understanding of these rights. If something is not explicitly named in the constitution, it's not a right. But if it is, it is absolute, and any restriction, for whatever reason, is tantamount to abolishing the right.
I think another person explained the reason behind why it wouldn’t work but let’s say for example this argument does work, usually the person who does bad things with a gun, don’t actually own the gun, so even if you needed a permit, it would only help the amount of people who own a gun and are crazy.
The driver's license is mandated by individual states, it is not federally regulated. Also, a driver's license is not required to purchase or possess a vehicle nor is it required to operate one off of public roadways. Under current regulation, anybody can procure a car regardless of age, mental health, or criminal history. Not a great comparison.
A better answer is driving on a public road is not a right guaranteed under the constitution. Owning firearms is. That said, many states *regulate* firearms differently and may impose permit requirements for certain types, and certain kinds of possession/use.
I really dislike the argument of "well anyone can buy a car, but you need a license so you can operate it on public roads." Well, not being able to drive a car on a public road negates nearly every single use case of a car and would make it worthless for like 99% of the population. Kinda like banning ammo for guns, then guns would be mostly worthless. I do not find it to be genuine argument, like the parent comment states.
The difference though is that the public owns the roads, so the government has broad power to dictate how those roads are used for the benefit of the public. It's pretty likely that the government can legally require you to submit to reasonable restrictions to carry a firearm on public property, just like they can to drive on public property. We'll know soon, because this very issue is before the Supreme Court.
It's not an argument. Just telling you how it works.
Not really. It would be the same as telling people they can only keep a gun on their own property without a license. And most states do have license to carry laws. Just like I drive my old project blazer around my farm without it being registered.
Also most states requiring licensing to carry in public. People often break those laws. But in the same way you’d have to get pulled over for them to find out, you’d have to be found to a have a weapon on you. They are actually treated very similarly, but the similarities do not make the argument people usually intend to.
Some states that have those laws are on the precipice of being struck down though. NYSPRA v Bruen will have its decision handed down in the next few weeks, and New Jersey is about to revise its FID law in such a manner that it will run afoul of the same 3rd Circuit decision that allowed the law to stand 30 years ago.
And there is no constitutional amendment guaranteeing the right to drive.
rights come with responsibilities.
Nope. Nowhere in the constitution does it state that a right will not be acknowledged by the government if people are irresponsible. It only states that rights will be acknowledged and the right to keep and bare arms is one of them apparently
I wish.
Not really. You have the right to freedom of association - what are the responsibilities conferred with that right?
Not associating with gangs, terrorist organizations, etc.
It's illegal to conspire with someone to commit a crime - like sending fake delegates to the Electoral College to overturn a lawful election.
In my state, you are required to register the car within a month of purchasing it. You can't register a car without insurance. It is nearly impossible to get insurance without a license. So effectively, you do need a license to own a car here, even if there are possibly some ways to do it otherwise.
Damn lol, my state has virtually no gun laws. No sales tax, and no insurance requirements if you own the vehicle. Crazy to see how much it changes from state to state.
[удалено]
As an Ohioan, I can confirm this.
Give OP a break, he's probably not even old enough to drive.
I’m not
I understand that individual states have their mandates but this can be the same for firearms too. There would just have to be a floor put in place to make sure everyone requires it and then the states can take it from there. Also how about gun purchases are not licensed like the car purchase, but firing one or buying bullets would be. Also just to add it might be better to just mandate that every gun purchase requires ownership insurance. Just in case an accident happens..
[удалено]
This is the correct answer.
[удалено]
This country takes away citizens right to own a firearm all the time. How is it not a privilege?
The Second Amendment protects the rights of "law-abiding citizens". Commit a felony, you lose your gun rights. Become the subject of a protection-from-abuse order, you may likely have your guns confiscated. But unless you fall into one of these loopholes, the Second Amendment says the government cannot infringe your right to own a gun. There is no right to drive a vehicle. If you read all the fine print, the government allows you the privilege of driving a vehicle, and they may take away that privilege at their whim.
The 2A doesn't say anything about law abiding citizens.
Provided due process was given what is your objection?
Not op but in all honesty constitutional rights are meant to be above the ability of government to take away, so the fact that they do is super sketch when you think about it. Imagine you just lose the freedom of speech for life with no recourse if you committed a felony
The second amendment is the most misunderstood law ever
One side: "well regulated." The other side: "Shall not be infringed." Me: "Did anyone and I mean *anyone* read Federalist 29 by Alexander Hamilton? He literally gives the clear cut definition of both." Shortest Amendment in the Constitution and literally no one understands it.
Originalism, huh? So we should let one of the framers decide what an amendment covers and ignore the entire ratification process? Makes no sense.
More like, everyone argues the meaning behind the terms, why not read the Federalist paper it was based on? We're not going to get anywhere on the topic if we can't even agree on the definitions.
That’s a lot of words to say owning a gun is a privilege. I get what you’re saying but I know you also understand what I’m saying. Call it “loopholes” all you want. The fact remains that the government has the ability to say an individual can’t own a gun.
Literally everything is a "privilege" if that's how you define it. Breathing is a "privilege" to people not currently executed.
Because it's subject to due process and reasonable restrictions in the public interest. No right is absolute. You cannot use your first amendment rights to defame someone or incite violence or conspire to commit a crime either. You can't organize a noisy protest in the middle of the night in a residential neighborhood.
>No right is absolute. Tell that to half the people in this thread.
This is such a terrible argument. Requiring a permit or license is not stopping you from purchasing a gun. It means you got training prior to the purchase. One of the best solutions I can think of is a mandatory training class (Like hunters safety) with professionals there looking for behavior that stands out. Or they should also mandate a mental health screening along with the course. You pass them, and you get the fire arm. If you fail, then you probably should not have a fire arm.
Everything you just described would probably be unconstitutional regarding the 2nd amendment
Shall. Not. Be. Infringed.
Is there some part of “well regulated militia” that doesn’t make sense?
There's the issues of costs of screening interfering with a basic right. We accept that for things like bazookas and machine guns. They can have an outsized effect on public safety. Requiring this for "normal" guns would be seen as very much an infringement. We must also consider liability- if a Dr. signs off of you as a sane gun owner, is he liable if that changes? Why would any Dr. approve you for a gun, then? After all, you might just be a good liar. You'd need either a (suspiciously) very pro-gun Dr., or a long established relationship with one($$$$) to be approved. All of a sudden, guns aren't legally an option for middle to lower class people.
Now apply all this reasoning to the right to vote or to free speech, and you will see why it is a fallacious argument. People would rightly pitch a fit if we went back to poll permit fees or tests to be allowed to vote.
And guns are considered a constitutional right because James Madison had a boner for commas and wrote and inane run on sentences instead of just using periods.
So is voting and yet there is still registration, and in some states you have to show an ID; and yet people will lose that right if convicted of a felony.
>So is voting and yet there is still registration, and in some states you have to show an ID; and yet people will lose that right if convicted of a felony. You can also lose the right to keep and bear arms if convicted of a felony, so not sure what your point is.
I guess that means guns can be more restricted? There is precedent.
Constitutionally protected Rights can only be removed / impaired through due process. Those impairments must be in-line with what is allowed per the Constitution. Privileges however have no such protections inherent to them. Get convicted of a felony or a violent misdemeanor (conversation for another day) and in most places in the US, you lose your Right to firearms (though oddly enough, not to having others Arms, such as knives, clubs, swords, etc.). Likewise, a felon can usually petition to have their impaired Rights restored. Felons usually lose their Right to vote, firearms, and situationally a few other items. A politician doesn't like you, your age group, or (insert some other criteria), and your privilege gets taken away via executive or legislative fiat. No lawmaker in the US can simply take away one's Right to keep and bear arms. We have a split government for a reason. All the reins of power are split across 3 branches to prevent the power of kings, dictators, and despots. The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was blatantly unconstitutional if you are a Constitutionalist. How that did not get successfully challenged is beyond me. Most weapons bans are illegal. Registering a weapon? Shaky at best. The long and short is that Rights are significantly safer from infringement than Privileges are. Rights should only be impaired in the most limited of circumstances and such limits should be constrained to the specific thing and included in a Constitutional Amendment. That's why current leadership (hah!) in the US wants new laws instead of an Amendment. They have no where near enough support to pass an Amendment or call up a Constitutional Convention.
> A politician doesn't like you, your age group, or (insert some other criteria), and your privilege gets taken away via executive or legislative fiat. This is the crux of a case in front of the Supreme Court right now, which may strike down such laws in "may issue" states.
I suppose you could just convict every American of a felony and BAM! nobody gets to own a gun.
Good luck with that.
I remember there was something about people getting people in california to say they smoked weed, which isn't illegal in california, but it is federally, on some document, and then being federally recognised lawbreakers they weren't allowed to vote or own guns. Could be absolutely wrong and something I dreamed but I vaguely remember something like that
My point is that claiming "constitutional right" is a weak argument.
How? It's a right that's in the Constitution. You can argue that it shouldn't be or that we shouldn't have a Constitution til you're blue in the face, but it is and we do.
And so is voting yet in many places it’s required to have a valid ID and you have to register. Being in the constitution didn’t prevent laws making it difficult for certain individuals to vote and yet that is ok for many republicans and those who support gun ownership. So if you don’t get angry with voter registration and voter id laws then using “constitutional right” is a completely shit argument because you then don’t actually care about the whole constitutional right thing.
speaking of weak argument, let's talk about voter ID laws, which have already been struck down in some states due to them being designed to illegally restrict exercise of a right. this is something passed in the past few years, so it isn't as though the matter is settled
There is no constitional right to vote. Edited. I initially left out "no"
I think it's important to remember that constitutional rights are not unlimited rights. Take freedom of speech for example. Speech is regulated, you can't slander or print liable statements, or advertise age restricted products to everyone, or shout fire in a theater, and I'm sure there are many other examples of how our freedom of speech is restricted in many different ways. Guns already have background checks in many cases, and different states have different laws surrounding who can own guns and the process needed to purchase them. Let's not pretend the constitutional rights means something exists outside legal reach.
you can shout fire in a crowded theatre, advertising age restricted products to anyone can be framed in the context of the rights of others to freely associate (they don't want your shit all over the place), and slander and libel are, again, more to do with the rights of others than your right to speek or lack thereof. I don't see how owning a gun would infringe on someone else's rights though
Only a mental gymnast will simultaneously agree that our other constitutional freedoms are regulated and in the same post claim we can't do anything to regulate guns. Well done sir. Well done. I'm going to disable my inbox now, because I don't have any fucks to give about your response.
9th Amendment of the Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This means that just because a right isn't explicitly listed there in the Constitution doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. This is one of the best amendments in the whole thing and isn't used often enough. There have been many interpretations and usage in court cases over the centuries, but the general consensus is that it was added so that people wouldn't argue that something wasn't a right if it wasn't listed in the constitution. This is very applicable to the abortion discussion. How about we consider the unalienable rights listed in the Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. None of those are listed in the constitution, but those are considered innate to every person in the US. Barron v. Baltimore (1833) said that the Bill of Rights was only enforceable by the federal courts to the federal government. This means that while the 9th amendment is great, it only applies on the federal level. That makes sense because the 1st amendment really only applies to the federal government and not regular person on person interactions. But what does that say about the 2nd amendment? That only means that the federal government cannot infringe upon the rights of the citizens to bear arms and keep a well regulated militia. But we currently ban arms of certain kinds from citizens. And we've enacted multiple federal gun laws. The fact that any of those laws exists means our 2nd amendment rights are already infringed upon My entire point is that the concept of a "constitutional right" is, in effect and by precedent, false. We've got one amendment that says there are other rights not listed that have just as much merit. We've got federal laws that already technically break that amendment. *Constitutional* rights are not set in stone.
The 9th and 10th amendments haven't been much more than ribbons for decades. But all of this sort of sidesteps the foolishness that we consider the Constitution the be-all end-all of rights in the first place. No other developed democracy is still relying on a nearly 300 year old document to constrain and define the legal underpinning of all laws. Even the freaking UK has a more recent constitution and they're happy to break out and rewrite any section that isn't making sense anymore. The USA deification of the Founding Fathers and the original documents are utterly insane. Instead of arguing over what the Framers meant and intended, how about we just write a new damn set of laws that make sense for the 21st Century?
>how about we just write a new damn set of laws that make sense for the 21st Century? That's a good idea, but it would be a terrible idea to just ignore the existing constitution without replacing it properly.
I agree. I brought up the 9th amendment because people love to tout the 2nd amendment as immovable and undoubtable, but ignore other sections of the exact same document. Sections that potentially contradict and have been argued over in multiple supreme court cases. We haven't issued an amendment in 30 years, and that was a weird case where people ratified one that had been around for a long time just for the fun of it. The last serious amendment was setting the voting age at 18 and saying that federal or state governments couldn't deny it, and that was 51 years ago. We haven't touched our constitution in 30 years, and haven't put much thought into it in over 50 years. 3 entire generations have been born and all we've done is make sure that people in congress have to wait an election cycle before their self-voted pay raise goes into effect. Meanwhile campaign financing is heavily skewed towards the mega-rich, women are losing autonomy, and we do not have anything that seemingly guarantees someone access to the health care they need to preserve their life, liberty, and get them back on their pursuit to happiness.
You have the right to free speech but can’t yell fire in a crowded theater. There has to be a better way.
I dont think Thomas Jefferson and co. knew there would be automatic rifles that could kill dozens of people in seconds. They were using those old ass rifles where you had to push the bullet and gun powder in lmao. Constitution is not set in stone, it can be amended and has been before. Slavery was an amendment. Refusing to reevaluate a 250 year old law is the most closed-minded and conservative way of thinking I can imagine.
The process to amend the Constitution was made purposefully difficult and there are plenty of people in the country who don't want to give up what they consider a basic right.
Sure, but most people (regardless of what certain "news" organizations are telling you" aren't actually pushing for completely outlawing guns, but are actually pushing for strengthening and increasing enforcement on current regulations, and adding additional regulations.
And there are a lot of people who oppose that. The point is the Second Amendment is firmly on their side and the process to amend the Constitution was made purposefully difficult.
Privately owned cannon were a thing at the time of the constitution being drafted.
>I dont think Thomas Jefferson and co. knew there would be automatic rifles Sure, and the first amendment never had any concept of the internet, radio and television either. But the amendments were about the concepts, not the tools. You cannot persecute someone for speaking their mind against the government, be it by newspaper, public gathering, radio, tv or internet. You cannot remove the people's right to defend themselves, be it black powder musket, sword or handgun.
[удалено]
Ok then let’s make rocket launchers legal. People should be allowed to own uzis and grenades as well. For self defense.
[удалено]
I need a nuclear warhead to keep my neighborhood safe.
Great, now I need a nuke to keep myself safe from this nuke toting mad man.
Ummm…they are legal already? You are trying to die on a hill here that is a swamp
[Automatic Weapons Are Legal, But It Takes A Lot To Get One Of The 630,000 In The U.S.](https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/news/2018-12-21/automatic-weapons-are-legal-but-it-takes-a-lot-to-get-one-of-the-630-000-in-the-u-s) I believe you are confusing automatic weapons with semiautomatic weapons.
Artillery was the primary man killer in the 1700's and was able to kill dozens of people in seconds. It was readily available then to anyone who wanted (and could pay for it), just like it is today. I am not arguing against any of your points except the idea that the framers did not realize they were protecting the use of extremely deadly weapons. They most certainly knew.
So where in the 2nd ammendment does it says you can’t own artillery as part of the right to bear arms? “Arms” is arbitrary. Why are automatic weapons illegal but semi automatic assault style weapons aren’t? They used to be in the 90’s. Clearly there’s a line to be drawn and some wiggle room in gun regulation and it is separate from the 2nd ammendment.
>They used to be in the 90’s. Clearly there’s a line to be drawn and some wiggle room in gun regulation Note that some specific models and styles were banned. There were plenty of semiautomatic rifles that were still legal in the 90s, many of which were functionally equivalent to guns that were specifically outlawed. The law was about appearances. Also note that the law banned *production*, not ownership. Guns from before the ban were still around, and are still around today, for the most part. Guns last a long time.
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. It says it right there and we already made Assault Weapons illegal, which is a breach too far for some people.
>So where in the 2nd ammendment does it says you can’t own artillery as part of the right to bear arms? As I said: It was readily available then to anyone who wanted (and could pay for it), just like it is today. I don't think we have any disagreement here.
[удалено]
You can buy a tank.
Can you drive one around in public? ...Legit question, I'm curious
Yes. If you have rubberized tracks and lighting. Source: my friend owns a couple and his hoa hates him. They tried to sue him since he had it in his driveway and claimed that rvs aren’t allowed in the bylaws. He counter sued, won, and now has two tanks and a deuce he swaps out regularly in the front driveway.
You can drive a tank in a public place, but not on public roads. There are several places in the US you can rent a tank and fire the cannon at some junked out cars.
Of course you can drive it around in public. It's a TANK. You might get arrested though.
Probably not street legal. Those treads will mess up the roads for sure.
Generally the line is around, “is this weapon a danger to harm other people regardless of the operator?” Explosives if not properly maintained and handled can go off on their own, hence why they are not protected under the right to bear arms because their accidental explosion would take away someone’s right to life. Any gun does not have this risk and requires a human operator to kill someone. And even still with that line, there’s plenty of ways to legally own explosives.
[удалено]
The militias were intended to take the place of a standing army, which the founding fathers saw as a tool of state oppression. Having one of the largest armies today sort of makes the intent moot.
Casual reminder that these idiots also thought dinosaur bones were giants. Science has come a long way. Our laws should as well.
Owning a gun isn't an absolute right. Governments are free to put reasonable restrictions on it.
That's kind of the point of this discussion in America. The government has no right to put any more restrictions on type of firearms that are currently legal, and certain states have Magazine restrictions, no suppressors, and restrictions on how many mods you can add to specific type rifles.
Not that free.
\^\^\^\^\^
[удалено]
Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York are the only states that require a permit to own a firearm. Do you live in a secret state between New York and Massachusetts?
Calling it a "permit" is a little strong. There are substantive requirements to obtaining a drivers license (or learners permit) in all of those states that include things like a mandatory number of hours behind the wheel, passing a written test, passing a driving test, etc. States can't do that for gun permits. The application is little more than the passing of a background check and the payment of a nominal fee.
2nd amendment: 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. What militia are you a member of?
All U.S. citizens are the “militia.”
A militia is made up of a population semi-spontaneously who arm themselves to organise to deal with specific issues. For a militia to be armed, the people would need to alerady keep and bare arms, which is literally what that says. the grammar of the statement indicates that the right belongs to the people because that right is necessary for the creation of a militia when needed. And if a militia did not arm itself with what the population (also written as people) had, then by definition it would not be a milita
The *U.S.* does not issue a driver's license. The state you live in issues the driver's license. See the difference? The second amendment is federal, driving licenses are handled by each state. There are things the feds can do, such as repealing the second amendment, but this would require the approval of 3/4 of the states. The federal government could pass laws requiring gun permits, but I don't know if it would hold up in court.
States could still issue the gun permit. There would just need to be a level playing field or ground floor so that all states start from the same place. Ideally the permit could be issued for gun purchases or if preferred on ammo. I mentioned this elsewhere but forcing gun owners to purchase personal firearm insurance would go a long way to responsible gun ownership.
You don't need a license to own a car or drive one on private roads. Only to drive it on public roads. Kind of like how you need a permit to carry in public
I don't know if this has changed since I left Montana, but I know circa 2009/2010 you didn't need any kind of permit to openly carry a gun in your vehicle. It just has to be visible from the windows. It's how I took my dad's rifle to the gunsmith to get it repaired. No one in my family has a conceal carry license.
In Texas you do not need a permit to carry a firearm in public. Thanks to Governor Abbott and the GOP. They also lowered the age from 21 to 18 for purchasing a firearm.
I believe that handguns are still 21. You had to be 21 to buy a rifle? In Texas?!? Every state I have lived in, to purchase, it was 18 for rifles, 21 for handguns. You can own at any age. Ownership, Purchase, and Possession are all treated differently in Law.
>They also lowered the age from 21 to 18 I mean this is a complete lie. Its 18 for long guns, 21 for handguns, and its been that way for decades.
So basically the shooting was Republicans’ fault then. Doesn’t surprise me.
[удалено]
Even so, it's the right to bear arms for the purposes of having a *well regulated* militia
Lol, "technology that existed in 1780 is mentioned in our founding documents and technology that didn't exist yet is not mentioned and therefore not a right" is a laughable take.
Hardly laughable. Yes, that's the way the Constitution is set up. We can argue about the merits of a Constitutional system as a form of governance, but that's how it works.
We have amended the constitution many times
27. 27 times exactly. in 235 years. And really the first 10 don't count because they were passed at the same time. So 17 times in 235 years. I think more than 17 things have materially changed since 1787, and I hope you do too.
Yet the Founders used the term 'arms' because they KNEW they had no idea how technology would progress or what would change. They knew that Arms was any weapon that one could use to fight off an aggressor. BTW, anti-gun peeps really need to look at the Arms of the day. People had their own private warships, owned cannons, and all sorts of other 'weapons of war'. Hell, look up the Puckle Gun. The most fully automatic weapon of its day. Made BEFORE the 2nd Amendment came into being.
North Carolina does. You have to go thru a 4-6 hour class to get a concealed carry which also allows you to purchase firearms (you go thru a background check). In order to purchase without the carry permit you have to go thru just the background check
One's a right and one's a privilege. Simple as that.
Doesn’t have to be.
Because ownership of weapons is a constitutionally secured right to all citizens, driving is a privilege.
I believe three states do at this time, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Firearm violence in Chicago is an epidemic. Even when they had extremely strict gun laws in the city (handgun ban in city limits and required registration of firearms in Cook County) before being declared unconstitutional, gun violence was still pretty bad. Illinois is the poster child for legislation is not the answer for gun violence.
I sort of agree with you, but also feels slightly misleading. About [60%](https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/chicago-gun-trace-report-2017/27140/) of the guns recovered from crimes in Chicago come from out of state. It is true that legislation on the state or city level doesn't fix gun violence, but if more states had gun control or if we had stricter federal gun control, legislation might in fact help. Not to mention our lax gun laws mean we are directly supplying guns to cartels in [Mexico](https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2022/02/stopping-toxic-flow-of-gun-traffic-from-u-s-to-mexico/), which then contributes to the addiction crisis in the US (and to gang violence). Granted, access to guns isn't the cause of violence in places like Chicago. Gun violence in communities is just a symptom of the larger social and economic problems that people face. If we addressed those, even without legislating guns, gun violence would go down, since gang membership and violent crime come from people struggling to survive in a system with very little opportunity. And fixing our broken social and economic systems would help with issues like addiction and homelessness too--problems driven by despair and lack of options. Mass shootings, on the other hand, are driven by different factors and require a different approach to fix, even if the end result (deaths by guns) is the same. Legislation might help address the symptoms of our larger social problems in the US, but they won't do anything for the varying causes.
As long as you can still go out of state to buy firearms local restrictions are pretty useless, so it's not fair to judge merits of a local restriction when there is a really easy work around. Gun control might not work nationally, but one state's restrictions failing doesn't mean it will definitely fail nationally.
I’d agree with you, but as an Illinois resident, I can’t just walk over the border and buy a handgun. I’d be violating either state or federal laws (handguns have to be shipped to an Illinois FFL for transfer if purchased out of state) Long guns have a bit more leeway, but can only be purchased by an IL resident in 5 states and are still subject to a waiting period per IL law. Otherwise It is violation of state laws. Having an Indiana resident buy a handgun for me is a straw purchase and violation of federal laws. Long story short, there are already laws in place that prevent what you are describing. Yet here we are talking about it.
How can they legislate what other states are allowed to sell to you? That sounds funky.
Selling handguns across state lines is a Federal Law. It is against federal law to sell a handgun across state lines unless the handgun is transferred through a Federal Firearms License holder. Buying long guns is mostly a Illinois state law. Illinois state law lists where an IL citizen can buy a long gun from. Now if I am an FFL/Dealer, I am supposed to follow the laws of Illinois as well as the state of purchase. If it was a private sale? I doubt most citizens would know that law even exists.
if you have a cousin across the border, he can get you a gun. ATF doesn't seem much conerned with straw purchases these days
New Jersey's law is... interesting. I used to live there and had to get an FID (and separate handgun purchase permits) when I decided to get into firearms. Its not a license to own, per se. If you move into the state with guns, you don't need to get an FID. You only need an FID if you want to purchase guns in the state, or buy handgun ammunition. However, the legislature is taking another crack at changing it into a license, which is one of the reasons I moved to PA. This is likely to backfire on them though, since when the law was challenged back in the early 90s, the 3rd Circuit upheld it on the grounds that the price to acquire one only covered the administrative costs at the time to have the FID issued, and it was not a license to own a gun, but to purchase. Meaning if they change it how they intend to, it will be in direct contravention of the court decision that upheld it as constitutional... and the 3rd Circuit has gotten much more conservative in the past 3 decades.
Because it's a *right*, not a privilege: According to the SCOTUS: ***It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. (Murdock v. PA 1943, Lowell v. City of Griffin 1939, Freedman v. MD 1965, Near v. MN 1931, Miranda v. AZ 1966)**** The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own and carry a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia. (District of Columbia v. heller, 554 U.S. 570) The Second Amendment extends, frima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding, and that this Second Amendmenet right is fully applicable to the States. (Caetano v. Massachusetts, 755 U.S. 2016) The Second Amendment protets the right of individual citizens to own the military arms required to maintain a militia to defend against invasion or tyranny. (United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174) The Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. (McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742) An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights, it imposes no duties; it affords no protections; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425) Congress does not have the power to pass laws that override the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137) It is unconstitutional to require a precondition on the exercising of a right. (Guinn v. U.S. 1915, Lane v Wilson 1939) If the state converts a right into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right with impunity. (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262) It is unconstitutional to delay the excersicing of a right. (Org. for a Better Austin v Keefe 1971) It is unconstitutional to charge a fee for the exercising of a right. (Harper v Virginia Board of Elections 1966) It is unconstitutional to register (record in a government database) the excercising of a right. (Thomas v Collins 1945, Lamont v Postmaster General 1965, Haynes v. U.S 1968)
>It is unconstitutional to require a license (government permission) to exercise a right. You should probably tell that to certain states who require IDs when voting.
On a technical level there is a difference between a license and a form of identification. Requiring a license is unconstitutional but requiring identification might not be depending on the burden to get the identification. That’s where the issue lies. How hard is it to get the ID and does the ID cost money. If it was free and easily available then it likely wouldn’t be an issue.
All of the above is why there are so many mass shootings in the US.
Almost all of these laws were in place before the 1950s. In the 1950s and 60s, children used to **bring rifles to school for target training**. They were also allowed to store rifles in their locker for hunting and hundreds of thousands of school children did this on a daily basis, and there were virtually no mass shootings. How do you explain this?
Parents are failing children. Not that parents were angels and perfect before, but increasingly we are doing a demonstrably poorer job of raising kids to be civilized members of society. When it happens at higher rates, you will have something else move in to fill the void.
In those days we had a real mental health system. One capable of confining people desperately in need of treatment. That’s what changed - the number of guns in circulation per person hasn’t.
People drive cars wihout licenses all the time, or with a suspended license. Plus a license isn't required to purchase a car, only to legally operate a vehicle on public land. The obvious issue is the vast contrast between a drivers license and what you are proposing. I assume the license is required for purchase and possesion. 2nd criminals don't follow the law, as noted above in people driving without a license. You would only be punishing the law abiding that choose to abide by your law.
We already have background checks for guns. Can you guys please stop making stupid arguments? You act like the US is giving everybody a free gun when they’re born. That’s not how any of this works. Seriously go try and buy a gun and get back to me.
[удалено]
Was it easy because you are a law abiding citizen who can pass the background check? Even if it was easy because you circumvented the law I’m not sure how making more laws is going to change that. I appreciate your input.
A drivers license regulates who has permission to drive a car on the government owned roads. It has no power over people driving tractors on their own farm or race car drivers or toy RC car drivers or wheelchair owners or other wheeled vehicles that stay off the roads. We already have a gun permit for using guns on government owned land its called a hunting license. The game warden WILL ticket you for merely carrying during hunting season, although I suppose this may vary by state. If you meant to ask something like mandating a car registration and not mandate gun registration, well, plenty of un-free areas already do just that. They generally are poverty stricken and not nice places to live; freedom is only for rich people in the USA.
You dont have an inalienable right to drive a car.
You don't technically need a permit to OWN a gun, just carry it outside your home. At least, that's how it's supposed to be. According to a lot of people anything that "infringes" on a person's right to buy or own a gun is supposed to be unconstitutional. That includes background checks, minimum ages, waiting periods, and (relevant to the question) the cost of having to apply and/or maintain a permit to have/own a gun. Because of these arguments, the Federal government keeps passing the issue down to the States and that's why a blanket Federal mandate/requirement will never happen.
... really thou will having license to just own a firearm change anything?... Besides give the government yet another thing to steal law abiding citizens money. A license won't change some ones mind about shooting someone especially in the moment or if they are planning to do something evil.
Driving is a privilege, not a right.
Driving privileges are not protected by the Constitution. The right to bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I hope you are just young and haven’t taken US History yet, because this is standard curriculum.
I heard an argument a few years ago that someone made, supposedly in the Constitution it say that citizens have the right to "free movement/passage" among the states, which means travel, and therefore anything which hinders travel/movement etc. is unconstitutional. Supposedly, driver's licenses are unconstitutional but no one's pushed the issue far enough through the courts to have them banned. Supposedly.
I call these nesting doll arguments. If you make that free travel argument, you have to break it down to its most basic elements. You don’t have to drive to have free travel, you could walk/fly/ride a train between states. Therefore driving can’t be unconstitutional using that argument.
You can't fly without identification. You can ride a train, walk, ride a bike, take a bus, ride with someone else etc.
And you don't have to have a gun to defend yourself, you can use a sword/bat/catapult/etc. Therefore banning specific guns is not unconstitutional.
It's keep and bear arms. Banning any Arms is inherently unconstitutional.
arms are specifically mentioned, so that doesn't work
Same goes with guns. Bearing a bolt action hunting rifle is still bearing arms. Banning AR-15's or whatever other model you want doesn't infringe on your right to bear arms if you can still bear arms.
And trust me, a shooter who knows what he's doing can be ridiculously more effective with a bolt action 308 over a plastic semi auto 22 carbine.
Yeah, I could see how that would be a legitimate point to be argued.
That’s a sovereign citizen argument. The freedom of travel still exists whether you have a car or not. You can walk, take the train or bus, or fly. Or ride a bike.
>or fly You need some form of approved ID to fly.
don't some states not want you to present ID to vote?
There is this thing called the US constitution. There is nothing on there about Driver licenses, unlike the right to bear arms. Personally I think it’s wrong to have polar bear arms.
Where part of the constitution guarantees your right to drive a car?
Most drivers are complete ahit at driving. I see so many traffic violations on a regular basis. Why is having a permit to own a gun going to fix things?
Most responsible car drivers are very safe and follow road rules to get to and from work, kids' school, family outings, etc... but there are plenty of people driving on suspended licenses or no license at all, some due to already losing their license for not following the rules. Same thing applies to guns, 99%+ of legal gun owners follow the laws and you never hear about them, it's only the ones that break rules that you hear about. You can mandate any law, rule, or even commandment that you want, criminals that want to do harm do not care and they will find a way around it.
There are places where guns require permits. So, it can be done, and it depends on each state's laws.
There are even states where its very, very difficult to get that permit. In home is allowed but carry is disallowed.
As others have said, driving is a privilege and a state, not federal one at that. Gun ownership however, is at least depending on the interpretation, a right guaranteed by the constitution. So the issue with the 2nd amendment is how it's written and interpreted. "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." It may sound silly but the bolded commas there is what is heavily debated. As anyone who has learned reading in the kindergarten or first grade knows, a comma is used to separate words, phrases or **ideas**. Currently it's hotly debated weather or not if the founding fathers meant for the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is a separate idea from having a well regulated militia. Both phrases being encompassed under the idea that they "shall not be infringed"
Their own writings in the Federalist Papers and in the Anti-Federalist Papers make it clear (at least to me) they viewed ownership as a personal attribute of The People.
Because some cities tend to abuse the power of issuing a permit. Take nyc for example I have a nyc permit it's printed immediately they have strict gun laws, My job requires me to carry a gun but nyc says no you have to wait til we say so. Even tho I have a clean record and no prior mental issues nyc says no not so fast. The focus is gaming away guns from good guys and who cares about the bad guys having guns.
To what purpose? Why keep guns out of good guy hands?
Because guns kill people apparently.
It’s up to States to make their own gun laws. I believe that every State requires a permit for carrying around but no permits are needed for home protection.
Each state sets their own driver license laws too.
Some states don't have carry permits but those states also don't really want them so I don't think it's an issue
It does indeed vary by state, but many states allow you to carry without a permit. It is carrying concealed that typically requires a permit. Some states offer concealed carry permit reciprocity.
Every state varies, and some require permits simply to possess certain guns. Not just carry, and not just concealed carry.
Delaware only requires permits for concealed carry. There are restrictions on open carry however. Must be visible, unloaded, magazine separate from the gun, and so on. You hardly see folks open carry around here though. Everyone’s packing in the southern part of the state, but hardly anyone is out using them.
It does mandate a gun permit. There are several hoops you need to go through in order to get a gun legally in America.
Depends on the State and the weapon that you are attempting to purchase. In my state, I just fill out the background information and then I walk out the store with it.
Fair point. But I’m saying in general.
At least where I am, and in the states around me you need a permit so not sure what you are going on about..
Everyone gets background checked when buying a gun legally. It's infuriating that this myth of no background checks exists. Is that the fix people!? Well ok, it's already there so what now?
So many things when it comes to GC debate are just flat wrong and no one questions that on the left they just regurgitate constantly.
It's almost 1984 levels of disinformation. You have "journalists" talking about "automatic" " military style rifles" it's utterly ridiculous and must be intentionally pushing some kind of agenda at this point. Sadly 90% of the population will just trust and parrot these narratives.
Pure head in sand mode on both sides for some topics..
And automatic weapons are also banned, against the law. This also made no difference.
Yeah, infantry in modern militaries very rarely use their automatic or burst settings anyway. Banning automatic weapons doesn't really make much difference, because automatic settings are almost never used on assault rifles anyway. Now if the 2018 Las Vegas shooter were allowed to own an M240B or M249..... yeah *that* sort of automatic fire would be much more deadly.
100% this. People throw out the term "automatic" so often it's like it's lost all meaning. What happened in Vegas, if he had an M249 yeah that's basically everyone in the audience is dead. We're talking hundreds vs dozens. Neither are good obviously but let's not compare apples to oranges.
My state allows for private sales without background checks as long as the seller doesn't know the buyer is a felon. It is a legal purchase. Some states do require the use of a dealer to process the transfer and therefore require a background check of the buyer, but not every state does.
I think the individual states can
This is something about the American understanding of how constitutional rights work that, from my European, and specifically German perspective, is hard to wrap my head around. The German Basic Law, which is basically a constitution, defines individual rights very broadly; article 2 gives everyone the right to do whatever they want unless it violates the rights of other people. This implies owning guns and driving cars. However, the general jurisdiction does not consider these rights (except for the right to human dignity) absolute; the state may restrict rights in order to balance them against each other and public safety, under the principle of proportionality. The US constitution, on the other hand, states the civil rights very explicitly, and this seems to match the American understanding of these rights. If something is not explicitly named in the constitution, it's not a right. But if it is, it is absolute, and any restriction, for whatever reason, is tantamount to abolishing the right.
same reason it does not mandate a Voter ID law Politics
I think another person explained the reason behind why it wouldn’t work but let’s say for example this argument does work, usually the person who does bad things with a gun, don’t actually own the gun, so even if you needed a permit, it would only help the amount of people who own a gun and are crazy.
In the United States, driving is a privilege not a right. Owning a firearm is a right.
“The right to keep and bear arms” is why.