The Right to Bear Arms?

[Guymullins]

I have always be an admirer of the American Constitution and its treatment of Bearing Arms.
Here in South Africa, our alleged government is trying its hardest to strip all civilians of privately held arms.
We have, so far, been able to stave this off by fighting every attempt in court. Our constitution has no Right to Bear Arms claus or amendment, but it does have strong property rights, which include the possession of firearms.
The authorities have been making it increasingly difficult to obtain a Firearm License, but if you are willing to jump through all the hoops, you will eventually get your license.
What we do have is there are no restrictions on carry. If you have a license, you may carry the weapon openly or concealed. Rifles should be covered when carried in the street or in a vehicle and thats it.
It has therefore been a mystery to me that America, the Land of the Gun, seemed to make some distinction between Owning and Carrying either Concealed or Openly.
I Googled this and was very surprised to see that every state has its own rules, many of which, to my untutored eye, seem to go contrary to the Second Amendment.
Some states, that I would have expected to be much more liberal in outlook to weapon carry, were in fact quite restrictive.
How did this happen?

[blacksmoke]

"The Congress shall have Power To ...make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

This is where that jack-assery comes from. While it is obvious that the constitution was written in a time way before mass migration from Europe (in terms of numbers that we saw in the late 19th/early 20th century) the original citizens of the colonies had wide open territory to farm, hunt and "exploit." Once the population became that of an industrialized European hemogeony, life changed to the type we have today. Citizens slowly became dependent on the gov't, gov't was happy to provide, and now a good deal of Americans expect gov't to step in to handle many of our problems. In a true constitutional democracy like we had for the first hundred or so years people simply took care of themselves and their neighbors and that was that. There wasn't much need to collect taxes and support a police dept. when a posse of armed citizens could get together and defend themselves. After the industrial revolution, urbanization, much higher rates of immigration, we got ourselves here.

[Dusty]

Some states, that I would have expected to be much more liberal in outlook to weapon carry, were in fact quite restrictive.
How did this happen?

Libs.

[Dusty]

Guymullins;

Study the American Hippie from inception to now.

It'll become crystal clear why unreasonable gun control happens, as well as rampant homosexuality, drug abuse, devil worship, et al.

[Badger52]

Guymullins;

Study the American Hippie from inception to now.

It'll become crystal clear why unreasonable gun control happens, as well as rampant homosexuality, drug abuse, devil worship, et al.+1 And downstream, the embracing of "anything goes" also fosters an attitude that quickly drifts away from questioning anything one's government does as long as they get to feel good.

[GratefulCitizen]

I have always be an admirer of the American Constitution and its treatment of Bearing Arms.
Here in South Africa, our alleged government is trying its hardest to strip all civilians of privately held arms.
We have, so far, been able to stave this off by fighting every attempt in court. Our constitution has no Right to Bear Arms claus or amendment, but it does have strong property rights, which include the possession of firearms.
The authorities have been making it increasingly difficult to obtain a Firearm License, but if you are willing to jump through all the hoops, you will eventually get your license.
What we do have is there are no restrictions on carry. If you have a license, you may carry the weapon openly or concealed. Rifles should be covered when carried in the street or in a vehicle and thats it.
It has therefore been a mystery to me that America, the Land of the Gun, seemed to make some distinction between Owning and Carrying either Concealed or Openly.
I Googled this and was very surprised to see that every state has its own rules, many of which, to my untutored eye, seem to go contrary to the Second Amendment.
Some states, that I would have expected to be much more liberal in outlook to weapon carry, were in fact quite restrictive.
How did this happen?

It is against the 2nd Amendment.

But governments don't like being told what they can or can't do.
Fortunately, the citizens here also don't like being told what they can or can't do.

Technically, the national government is a creation of the states and isn't supposed to be superior to the states except for very narrow, enumerated powers.
But, power tends to centralize and the practice is different than the theory.

There is a complex relationship between national and state governments, each having their own sovereign powers and jurisdiction over differing functions.
There is also a complex relationship among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the national government.

Gun control, at the state level, has its roots in the 19th century with the purpose of oppressing various racial/ethnic groups.
This is where concealed carry restrictions started.

Gun control, at the national level, has its roots in countering organized crime which flourished as a consequence of national alcohol prohibition early in the 20th century.
This started with the National Firearms Act of 1934, which resulted in a transfer tax on machine guns, short-barreled guns, and suppressors.

1938 saw further restrictions at the national/interstate trade level.
1968 saw yet more national/interstate trade restrictions, the beginnings of de facto registration, and IIRC, one of the important legislators was fluent in German, and based the legislation on some of Hitler's gun restrictions/registration scheme.

1986 saw a compromise at the national level, loosening some things, but restricting any future machine guns from being introduced into private circulation.
By 1986, concealed carry restrictions were ubiquitous at the state level.

1986 is also when the concealed carry, and other gun control issues, started to reverse at the state level, starting with Florida.
This reversal has continued with most of the states.

1993-1994 saw a national restriction on the introduction of new military style rifles and higher capacity magazines into circulation and a requirement for background checks on handgun purchases.
The restriction on military style rifles was a profound political failure, and a provision in the law (called a "sunset" clause) resulted in the automatic repeal after 10 years.

An important court case in 1997, Printz v. US, clarified that the federal government could not force states (or their political subdivisions) to enforce federal laws (known as the anti-commandeering doctrine).
This was a consequence of the handgun background check requirement.

While most states were becoming more gun friendly over that decade, a few were becoming more restrictive.
Some of the other effects on gun control were due to "rules changes", which is something which falls somewhere between the legislature abdicating its authority and the executive usurping legislative and/or judicial functions.

In the cases of national parks within states and other "federally managed" land (much of the land in the western US is in this category), there are some places where the states have proprietary jurisdiction, some places where the states and national government have joint jurisdiction, and some places where the national government has exclusive jurisdiction.
"Rules" interpretations really start to matter there.

There are also Native American reservations which are technically sovereign nations, having authority over their own people, but are also subject to some national and/or state governments when dealing with those who are outside their tribe, but on their land.
Their gun laws apply, but for the most part, their primary power over those outside their tribe is to evict them from their land.

Some of the restrictions and exemptions in states and national parks have nothing to do with self-protection, they have to do with the taking of wild game and pest control.
State departments of Fish and Game can be quite powerful.

The judicial branch also has a long history of usurping legislative authority.

So, now we have a patchwork of national, state, and tribal laws, as well as some various other laws within some state political subdivisions, due to urban areas wanting different laws than the surrounding state (though this only happens with the permission of the state government).
We also various court cases and regulatory "rules" interpretations complicating matters.

In practice, gun control tends to be more imposed on the sub-populations who favor it.
It tends to be less imposed on the sub-populations who are against it.

Federalism is a wonderful thing.

Gun owners consistently respond to gun control, or threats of gun control, with increased purchases of guns and ammunition.
There are currently at least 310 million legally, privately owned firearms in the USA.

While gun confiscation might be a fantasy for those who would rule, it will never be fully imposed in practice.
The only people with the skill and the will to confiscate them are largely pro-gun.

Hope that helps.

[SittingElf]

Gun owners consistently respond to gun control, or threats of gun control, with increased purchases of guns and ammunition.
There are currently at least 310 million legally, privately owned firearms in the USA.


...and I own 0.0000025806451612903224% of them! (8):D

[Guymullins]

Thanks for all the illuminating information. I am still surprised that the ever-vigilant NRA and the nations gun owners actually allowed this gradual white-anting of the Constitution.

[Dusty]

Thanks for all the illuminating information. I am still surprised that the ever-vigilant NRA and the nations gun owners actually allowed this gradual white-anting of the Constitution.

We still have our guns, in most cases; under Obama, 55 out of the 57 states still have CCW, I believe. Most of them have reprocity.

Here's what's gonna happen. We'll come back to this next year.

The non-dems are going to win the White House and keep the House.

CCW and open carry will be encouraged; guns will not be more tightly controlled and/or confiscated. Gun-free zones will fall out of vogue. Rads will have a harder time of it when they go to terrorizin' people.

[Team Sergeant]

"If Bruce Jenner can keep his weiner and be considered a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed."


'Dr Hugo Hackenbush' twitter

[Divemaster]

"If Bruce Jenner can keep his weiner and be considered a woman, I can keep my firearms and be considered disarmed."


'Dr Hugo Hackenbush' twitter

Fortunately my laptop seems more coffee resistant than initially thought.

[Stobey]

We still have our guns, in most cases; under Obama, 55 out of the 57 states still have CCW, I believe.

55 out of the 57 states? Dusty, are you going "Obama" on us? :D

[Dusty]

55 out of the 57 states? Dusty, are you going "Obama" on us? :D

You're joking, I hope. Surely.

We need, as a Country, to get this Citizen Marshall program under weigh.
Grassroots if we have to...

[Stobey]

Then you might want to read this article from CFP (Canada Free Press).

http://canadafreepress.com/article/77334

[Dusty]

Then you might want to read this article from CFP (Canada Free Press).

http://canadafreepress.com/article/77334

That's a interesting link, but with a flawed premise. If we think this through, a comparison can most closely be made to the Minutemen; one has to take into consideration the capability of "every" US citizen to bear arms; certain individuals cannot.

We also need C&C. It ain't just rad middle easterners who pose a future threat.

[FlagDayNCO]

Thanks for all the illuminating information. I am still surprised that the ever-vigilant NRA and the nations gun owners actually allowed this gradual white-anting of the Constitution.

I have read more than once that the NRA was at the table during the 1968 restrictions. The NRA of today, speaking Second Amendment rights, is not the NRA of decades ago when "shooting sports" was their spoken word.

Just in time, I have another message from the NRA that they need more money to protect my rights.

[SittingElf]

The Obama's understand the Second Amendment...."The Right To Bear Arms" to mean "The Right to BARE arms"

[craigepo]

The first ten Amendments to the United States Constitution, often referred to as the Bill of Rights, is actually a list of prohibited government actions. Besides despising the 2nd Amendment, the United States-haters also wholly ignore the 10th Amendment. The 10th is a really well-written law, but the people living government funded existences are so comfortable that they don't really care if the Amendment is ignored, as long as the welfare checks and Obama phones keep coming.

[Guymullins]

Speaking as a complete outsider, whose own gun rights are under extreme pressure by a criminal government I compare what has happened in the USA and South Africa. In the USA, it seems to me that your gun rights have been circumvented in two ways. Firstly, as discussed earlier, the Open/Concealed Carry issue has greatly infringed on the right to own and more importantly BEAR arms. The second of course is the sneaky notion of Gun-Free Zones. Where the authorities have failed to prevent you from bearing arms yourself, they have simply made parts of the country "Not-America" by declaring them gun free zones.
In South Africa, the rules and qualifications you need to bear arms have now become so onerous, and the re-licensing every 5 years, has made it very difficult to own a weapon. The purposely underfunded Firearms Registry is staffed with very lazy and not very bright individuals. So even when you have jumped through the hoops, they lose your paperwork or other wise make things very difficult. Ironically, this has had the effect that the old Apartheid government insisted on and that was to keep licensed firearms out of the hands of Blacks. Funnily enough, the government has been challenged so many times in court now that it is in fact impossible for them to arbitrarily refuse a license application, so it is possible to own as many firearms as you wish, providing you jump through all the hoops.This was not the case with the Apartheid regime where gun right were considered a privilege , not a right.