Protecting the Second Amendment – Why all Americans Should Be Concerned

[tonyz]

A not so recent article - but one that IMO contains a number of interesting and helpful observations regarding interpretation of the 2A.

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

by Nelson Lund, J.D., Ph.D.

©2002 by the Virginia Institute for Public Policy, Potomac Falls, Virginia, No. 7, June 2002

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. - The Second Amendment

"The Second Amendment is among the most misunderstood provisions of the U.S. Constitution. That is not because it is particularly difficult to understand. On the contrary, for more than a hundred years after it was adopted, hardly anyone seemed the least bit confused about what it meant. The confusion, and some serious mistakes, only became widespread in the twentieth century, when influential people began to think it was a good idea to disarm the civilian population. Because the plain meaning of the Second Amendment rather obviously creates an obstacle to these disarmament schemes, the temptation to misinterpret this provision of the Constitution became very strong."

http://www.virginiainstitute.org/pub...n_const.php#c2

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by MR2

Dozer, I understand your second point and would respectfully submit that your second applies to your first!

This thread WAS getting kind of boring.

[Lan]

"For The Sake Of The Children" ...or other such prattle.

[pcfixer]

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/20...ard_revers.php

Woollard reversed
POSTED BY DAVID HARDY · 21 MARCH 2013 10:04 AM
Just in. The District Court had sticken Maryland's "shall issue" carry permit system. The Fourth Circuit reverses, finding that it passes intermediate scrutiny. Another one bound for the Supreme Court.

See attachment

[Richard]

Newly released Congressional Research Service informational report.

Richard

Public Mass Shootings in the United States:
Selected Implications for Federal Public Health and Safety Policy
CRS, 18 mAR 2013 (attchd pdf)

Summary

This report focuses on mass shootings and selected implications they have for federal policy in the areas of public health and safety. While such crimes most directly impact particular citizens in very specific communities, addressing these violent episodes involves officials at all levels of government and professionals from numerous disciplines.

This report does not discuss gun control and does not systematically address the broader issue of gun violence. Also, it is not intended as an exhaustive review of federal programs addressing the issue of mass shootings.

Defining Public Mass Shooting

Policy makers may confront numerous questions about shootings such as the December 2012 incident at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, that claimed 27 lives (not including the shooter). Foremost, what are the parameters of this threat? How should it be defined? There is no broadly agreed-to, specific conceptualization of this issue, so this report uses its own definition for public mass shootings. These are incidents occurring in relatively public places, involving four or more deaths—not including the shooter(s)—and gunmen who select victims somewhat indiscriminately. The violence in these cases is not a means to an end—the gunmen do not pursue criminal profit or kill in the name of terrorist ideologies, for example.

One Measure of the Death Toll Exacted by Public Mass Shootings. Applying this understanding of the issue, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has identified 78 public mass shootings that have occurred in the United States since 1983. This suggests the scale of this threat and is intended as a thorough review of the phenomenon but should not be characterized as exhaustive or definitive. According to CRS estimates, over the last three decades public mass shootings have claimed 547 lives and led to an additional 476 injured victims. Significantly, while tragic and shocking, public mass shootings account for few of the murders or non-negligent homicides related to firearms that occur annually in the United States.

Policymaking Challenges in Public Health and Safety

Aside from trying to develop a sense of this phenomenon’s scope, policy makers may face other challenges when addressing this topic. To help describe some of the health and safety issues public mass shootings pose, this report discusses selected policy in three areas: law enforcement, public health, and education. While mass shootings may occur in a number of settings, the education realm is one that has received particular attention from policy makers, officials, and the public alike—at least since the 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO. The tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary has renewed such concerns for many.

In the areas of law enforcement, public health, and education, this report discusses some key efforts to prevent mass shootings as well as efforts geared toward preparedness and response.

Policy measures that deal with recovery are also discussed within the context of education and public health initiatives.

Policy Effectiveness and Outlay of Resources.

Many of the policymaking challenges regarding public mass shootings boil down to two interrelated matters: (1) a need to determine the effectiveness of existing programs and (2) figuring out where to disburse limited resources.

Finally, baseline metrics related to this problem are often unclear or unavailable. This lack of clarity starts with identifying the number of shootings themselves, since no broadly agreed-to definition exists. Several questions flow from this issue. How many people have such incidents victimized? How much does prevention of, preparedness for, and response to such incidents cost the federal government? What measurements can be used to determine the effectiveness of such programs?

[Richard]

I think this Army Officer does a good job of poignantly laying out some of the dilemma of the issue as many Americans might see it today.

Richard

Fort Hood, Sandy Hook and Powerlessness
JessicaScott, 21 Mar 2013

I hope I don’t offend a lot of people off with this post. It is not my intent. I’ve been wanting to write about a lot of things that have been happening lately but I’ve found that when I sit down to write, the right words don’t come to me.

So I realize that writing about Sandy Hook almost 6 months later is probably, well, behind the times. But I’ve finally figured out what I want to say, so here goes.

I want to explain why I – as a gun owner – am deeply conflicted about what to do. I want a common sense solution – one that keeps our children safe while still allowing access to the fundamental right that so many of us hold dear. I grew up around guns. I’m a soldier, so I’m comfortable around guns. When I deployed to Iraq, I had my weapon on me at all times. I remember coming home and looking for it in blind panic at one point, only remember that no, I’m not in Iraq any more. Not a PTSD flashback but an oh my God where did I leave my weapon sinking heart feeling.

I want to tell you two stories.

The Aftermath of Fort Hood

I came home from Iraq a month after the Fort Hood shootings, when one of our own wearing our rank and our uniforms walked into a building full of unarmed soldiers and civilians and started shooting. He did it to prove a point – he wanted to target soldiers in his war against us.

So when I came back to Fort Hood with my little girls – who were six and four at the time, it was to enroll my oldest in kindergarten. She had started her school years in the same elementary school that I’d attended as a little girl. There were maybe 50 kids in that whole school. It’s the kind of school where the kids you start with will probably be the kids you graduate with years later. It was small. It was, in my mind, safe.

Then we rolled up to my daughter’s new school. It was massive. There were 700 elementary school kids racing through the halls. Fourth graders who looked like giants next to my little girl.

But I asked about security. How did they keep people out? Did they have active shooter drills? They answered yes to all of those questions and I – with my husband’s hand on my shoulder – had to release my six year old into an unfamiliar school filled with strange, big children and pray that no one would target a school full of military kids to wage a war against our soldiers’ families.

Helplessness in Command

My second story takes place a very short time before I left company command. A company commander has a lot of power and influence. I promise you there is no job out there that gives me more access to medical information, police records. I can know almost everything about you. I am charged by my directives to use that power for good and to never abuse it.

But part of that power comes the massive responsibility to ensure that our soldiers are mentally and medically prepared to go to war. So when a soldier comes to one of our NCOs and says, I’m hearing a voice and it’s telling me I may have to kill my family, we’re going to the hospital.

A few short weeks after Sandy Hook, I found myself sitting in the doctors office, having a conversation about how do we keep The Voice from getting angry. What can we do to ensure the Voice stays benevolent and doesn’t keep the soldier awake at night. Or doesn’t keep talking to him at all.

You may or may not believe in demons but let me tell you, that was some really terrifying stuff. And demons or psychiatric illness, the end result is no less terrifying.

But in the aftermath of that conversation, when we decided on the evaluations they would run and no, they wouldn’t allow the soldier out of the hospital until the medication was working correctly, I had an argument with my father. He was complaining about a gun show being cancelled after Sandy Hook.

And I lost my mind. Because no matter how much authority I have a company commander, there was NOTHING I could do that would prevent that soldier from getting out of the hospital, driving himself off post and buying as many guns as he wanted. I couldn’t legally restrict him to post. I couldn’t bar him from buying/owning weapons. All I could do was keep him from firing the government weapons in my arms room.

The utter and complete powerlessness that I felt in that moment sticks with me and it colors how I see gun control.

We say oh, we can’t stop the crazies. We should all be responsible. We should, we should, we should.

But should is a four letter word in my world. It doesn’t describe how things are. I don’t want the fear that one of the violent, sociopathic, super-deviants out there who are idolizing the Aurora killer or the Sandy Hook killer to be able to get their hands on weapons. Because those people are out there. They want to up the score to the next level. Don’t believe me? Go look it up. There may be thousands of them with a sick desire to outdo Lanza.

As we see again and again, it only takes one.

I don’t know what right looks like when it comes to gun control. I certainly don’t want it to be arbitrarily enforced. I don’t want veterans afraid to seek mental health because they’re terrified of losing their right to bear arms. But if someone is unbalanced enough that they can’t care for themselves, do we really want to give them access to weapons?

But something – some rational middle ground has got to be found. Surely in the greatest nation on earth we can come up with something that makes sense? We the people. Not the corporations or their lobbyist pawns.

Us. The fabric that holds this great nation together.

Can’t we?

[sinjefe]

Originally Posted by Richard

IThe utter and complete powerlessness that I felt in that moment sticks with me and it colors how I see gun control.

Why do human beings always think they have to control everything? There are a million threats in everyday life that one can feel "powerless" to control. Car accidents, heart attacks, you name it. Why the mental gyrations over "common sense" gun control but not other possibilities?

The only "common sense" gun control I would be willing to debate is the purchase/ownership of surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenades, etc.

[MR2]

"We Should"

We often discuss what we should do and never the consequences of such actions. In spite of all the laws we pass - do we really ever make things any better?

[Stiletto11]

The career politicians have to make laws to justify thier existance. It is also a scheme to gain control and for some it is because they think they are the ruling elite and know what is best for the commoners.

[Badger52]

Sinjefe pretty much encapsulates my response to the letter by the former Company Commander which was thoughtful, and understandable.

Just an observation but it seems, when contrasted with the bulk of online outlets of any persuasion recently, that this thread in this forum, with the Quiet Professionals' letter as the topic, has spawned more civil discussion than any blog comments section could hope to achieve. My personal answer to despots remains unchanged. That is distinct from the fact that the letter remains of serious worth.

Some weeks hence now, might be a good time for one to evaluate whether the topic has led us to any other acquaintances who should be getting the benefit of a copy and provide it to them.

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by sinjefe

Why do human beings always think they have to control everything? There are a million threats in everyday life that one can feel "powerless" to control. Car accidents, heart attacks, you name it. Why the mental gyrations over "common sense" gun control but not other possibilities?

The only "common sense" gun control I would be willing to debate is the purchase/ownership of surface to air missiles, anti-tank weapons, grenades, etc.

Maybe because of the Serenity Prayer? (God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,The courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference.) if this is the case maybe change is the courageous course. Seems to me most of the reasons cited for not changing are based on fear ... Fear of tyrants, fear of criminals, fear of just not being allowed what one wants.
I'm amazed when I see references to other way we can die like traffic fatalities. The idea that we should regulate those and we don't But as I pointed out we do regulate everything regarding the auto industry. In everything else but guns we recognize there are inherent dangers and risks and attempt to reduce and mitigate them. But not guns. (And that is incredible because guns are the only things I can think of designed to kill stuff.)
Let me go on record, Me, I'm perfectly fine with any sane US citizen over the age of 18 owning any semi-auto weapon they want as long as it comes with a lock so a nut can't get their hands on it. And since I don't want (or think it will be effective to have) mandatory checks by law enforcement, that sane US citizen 18 years or older can still have any semi-automatic weapon they want as long as they lock it and accept unlimited financial liability for the damage they or their unsecured guns cause.

Originally Posted by Badger52

My personal answer to despots remains unchanged. That is distinct from the fact that the letter remains of serious worth.

These despots, who are they?

[Lan]

Originally Posted by Richard

I think this Army Officer does a good job of poignantly laying out some of the dilemma of the issue as many Americans might see it today.

Richard

I can identify with this woman. My kids will be going to school soon. I agree that something needs to be done to address the problem with gun ownership and mental health. Who determines who's mentally fit to own or have access to a gun? I've talked to enough psychs to know I wouldn't want them playing God with my rights. Something needs to be done though I'm not sure what.

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. I'd feel much more comfortable knowing my kids attended a school with armed security but we can't afford that right?! If it's good enough for Obama it's damn sure good enough for me. My kids are human beings with rights and they deserve the same protection the Obama's get. Obama works for us. That's something I think a lot of people forget!

[Dozer523]

Originally Posted by Lan

If it's good enough for Obama it's damn sure good enough for me. My kids are human beings with rights and they deserve the same protection the Obama's get. Obama works for us. That's something I think a lot of people forget!

Barrack Obama doesn't get Secret Service protection. The President does. When your kids are the President I'm sure they will get Secret Service protection but until then their human status does not entitle them to it.

That goes double for you, but feel free to request it. You never know, you might be just the sort the Secret Service wants to watch.

[Lan]

Originally Posted by Dozer523

Barrack Obama doesn't get Secret Service protection. The President does. When your kids are the President I'm sure they will get Secret Service protection but until then their human status does not entitle them to it.

Why omit the sentence prefacing what you quoted? What I said makes a lot more sense when you read the whole thing. Our Nations' children deserve to live in a society that addresses societal issues with honest solutions. As a taxpayer, I have a problem when I read things like this:

Originally Posted by Richard

Boeing refunded $76,849 after the inspector general determined it sold the Army a dime-sized, plastic ramp gate roller assembly used on the CH-47 helicopter for $1,678.61 apiece when the Pentagon Defense Logistic Agency had them in stock for $7.71 each.

Army Carbine Program May Waste $1.8 Billion

A trillion dollars a year has been added to our National Debt since Obama took office. You can't tell me irresponsible spending can't be remedied to make our schools safer by adding security to our public schools.

Originally Posted by Lan

I'd feel much more comfortable knowing my kids attended a school with armed security but we can't afford that right?!

Originally Posted by Dozer523

That goes double for you, but feel free to request it. You never know, you might be just the sort the Secret Service wants to watch.

If the Secret Service wants to monitor me for speaking my mind then I guess I'll have to be monitored.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Lan

You can't tell me irresponsible spending can't be remedied to make our schools safer by adding security to our public schools.

Public schools (K-12) belong to their local communities and monitored/certified by individual state departments of education; they do not belong to the state or federal governments, and it is the community's responsibility to enact such measures as they - the communities - desire.

Many school districts do have armed RSOs (Resource Safety Officers) on campus; they did in the DFW area and one district I know of in North Texas allows specified staff/faculty to CCW on their district's campuses. Where I live now, which is the 5th largest school district in California and the largest in Northern California, there are RSOs on school campuses.

Communities have to ask themselves what it is they want, because you cannot rail against the perception of an encroaching controlling government on the one hand and decry its failure to provide something that has always been a local initiative and responsibility (and IMO should remain such) on the other.

Richard