jackofallgeeks: (Default)
[personal profile] jackofallgeeks
So, This is
an article describing the preparations being made on a Supreme Court case
concerned with the Second Ammendment, the right to bear arms. It's a case
that was brought by a DC cop who argues that the DC ban on personal firearm
ownership infringes his constitutional right to arm and defend himself. The
city argues that the Ammendment was meant for militias only, and not private
citizens. (The city also goes on to say that, even if that weren't so, the
Ammendment doesn't hold the force of law in DC since it's a "federal
enclave," which seems an odd argument to make.)

For my part I find this very troubling. I do not currently own a gun,
though I've often considered getting one (of course, I'd need a lot more
experience and training firing one before I were comfortable owning one).
Defense of myself and my property against criminals is, I think, a noble and
just reasoning, but secondary; more so, I believe and have always understood
the Second Ammendment to be a safeguard against governmental abuses, a
guarantee that citizens can defend themselves against the government, should
it be necessary.

The Founding Fathers were in a position where their government had become
offensive and hostile toward them; further, the declaration of independence
draws strongly on the political philosophy of Locke, who I've read to also
say that a people have a right (and duty) to defend themselves against a
government who no longer serves their interests.

In a country where the government and their agents are the only ones who can
bring force to bear, what assurance do the people have that they will not
find that force directed against them? What resistance can we give,
unarmed, against an armed foe? I don't believe we currently have a
reason to fear the government, but if our right to arm ourselves is taken
away now, what recourse will we have if the government does become a
threat? The Second Ammendment is assurance that such a time will not come
or, if it does, we can be preparred for it.

Many people are concerned with the expanding governmental powers, and many
on the other side of the political fense point to the President's
apparently-monarchial attitude and the questionable activities of certain
government agencies. How much more concerned must we be, then, when they
tell us we have nothing to fear, and we ought to go quietly, disarmed, into
the night?

Date: 2008-03-18 06:20 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dikaiosunh.livejournal.com
Just a couple notes... The DC ban isn't on firearm ownership. It's on *handgun* ownership. As long as you have a trigger lock installed on it, you can have a long gun in your home in DC. Now, you may think that that's bad enough, but just to make sure the facts are straight - I've seen lots of people saying that the DC law bans things that it doesn't. Part of the argument, therefore, is that the DC handgun ban is similar to place and scope restrictions on the 1st amendment (e.g., that cities can constitutionally have bylaws that mean you need to get a permit for large demonstrations).

Similarly, Locke argues for a right to rebellion (contra Hobbes), but I don't recall him extending that directly to a right to personal arms (though I don't have my Locke in front of me). Locke was much more concerned about the way that property rights supported freedom, on the very Roman model of freeholding landowners who were thereby not subject to undue economic extortion by the powerful.

Second, the argument about what the framers "intended" with the 2nd amendment is an interesting and complex one. I think you're right that it had something to do with the idea that people could throw off a tyrannical government. But in Federalist 46, Hamilton explicitly talks about this in terms of state governments using their militias to resist federal influence - he's not envisioning a general uprising of individuals (Hamilton was smart enough, as I would hope modern 2nd amendment boosters would be, to recognize that a *disorganized* uprising against a federal government with a standing army would be hopeless). So I think if we interpret the 2nd amendment as protecting our ability to rise up against the federal government, other things equal, that tends *against* the argument that we should all be able to have personal arms without restriction or regulation. I'm more persuaded (but not entirely persuaded) by the argument that armaments for personal defense are protected by the 9th amendment as a customary (or even natural) right.

Date: 2008-03-18 08:32 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com
Arguable point on the fact that it's a ban on handguns, but... You want me to be OK with someone owning a rifle and not with someone owning a handgun? More to the point, you can't walk around with a rifle which minimizes the usefulness of a firearm in terms of self-protection (which, considering DC is DC, would be my main concern here). Maybe that's part of the point, Joe Average can't walk around with a gun on him, but if he's committing no crime what's the harm? And if he IS committing a crime, he probably has a gun anyways: criminals tend to break laws. In essence, it diminishes the security of law-abiding citizens without (what I feel) reasonable benefits to the community. That was said weakly.

You're right about Locke not mentioning personal armament, but he doesn't touch that question at all. I'm not sure, in 16th Century England, that the right to bear arms was in question (I could be wrong). But he does advocate reasonable rebellion in the face of a government hostile to it's people, and I think it would be foolish to imagine that, in such a case, there would not be fighting. The need to arm oneself to defend against an adversarial government falls out from that.

Finally, you may have a point in that the wording could have been intended to maintain the autonomy of the states themselves in the face of a potentially-hostile national government; I think that would make sense. However, the states lost (most if not all of) their autonomy with the close of the civil war. It's arguable whether state governments are anything more than delegated extensions of the federal government, at least in the case of imagining a situation where we would need to defend ourselves from said government. What's more, it's my understanding that a militia to them was quite different than whatever we might equate these days. To the Founding Fathers the militia was more of private citizens who could take up arms when called upon. The closest we have these days is perhaps the National Guard, though I think it a bad comparison.

The point being that the Second Amendment was intended to protect us from the Federal government, and even if the states were supposed to be our defense, the fact is that they can not currently serve that function. Therefore, we ought to be free to defend ourselves.

I would concede that I like your argument of the 9th vs the 2nd Amendment being the basis for personal defense. I'm not sure how well it would hold up, though.

Date: 2008-03-18 09:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dikaiosunh.livejournal.com
I'm not sure what point was arguable about the scope of the restriction. I slightly misspoke - handguns are just the most commonly desired sort of weapon that the ban covers. You also can't have a sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle.

http://weblinks.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?DB=DC%2DST%2DTOC%3BSTADCTOC&DocName=DCCODES7%2D2502%2E02&FindType=W&AP=&fn=_top&rs=WEBL8.03&vr=2.0&spa=DCC-1000&trailtype=26&Cnt=Document

Re: the "only criminals will have guns" argument. I don't quite get the point about needing a handgun for personal defense. 1. Deterrents work best when they're obvious (remember the bit at the end of Dr. Strangelove - "WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL THE WORLD???"). If you really want someone not to mug you in Anacostia, carry a big-ass shotgun and tell them to fuck off. 2. Handguns wouldn't be my weapon of choice for personal, or especially not home defense (if I decide I need to defend my home, I'm getting that big-ass shotgun). They're relatively inaccurate, and if you've got one in a concealed carry you better be a gunslinger or you're unlikely to get the drop on an assailant (actually, in the kind of scenario where you get mugged by surprise, unless you're walking around with your gun drawn, you're unlikely to get the drop on anyone anyway). You're better off with a deterrent than a defense (see point 1). 3. Yes, criminals are more likely to have illegal weapons than citizens. But this misses the broader enforcement context. Part of what a gun ban does is let DC clamp down on sources of guns coming into the city (VA, you're not helping). It's more occasional that you'll take a gun out of a criminal's hands than that you'll be able to throttle them at the source.

Now, all that said, the evidence is up in the air re: how effective DC's gun control laws have been. So they might well be useless. But I think it's, frankly, a power-fantasy that somehow citizens of DC would be significantly *safer* if they could only bear concealed weapons (and machine guns).

Incidentally, John Lott is faculty at University of Maryland. The statisticians in the MSPP and the econ department were rather surprised to learn this (especially considering that mentioning "More Guns, Less Crime" is likely to earn you eyerolls and a 20 minute lecture on datasets). He's in the computer science department, which for what it's worth, does not bode well for how the broader stats and econ world see the quality of his work.

Date: 2008-03-18 09:16 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] dikaiosunh.livejournal.com
I almost forgot. Re: militias. Yeah, we don't really have them any more. But that doesn't automatically change the content of the right, unless you're some sort of damn dirty living constitution type. :) It might just be that we have a right to do something that no one is doing anymore... just like I have a right to make buggywhips if I so choose.

In all seriousness, though, I think the bigger point is that personal ownership of firearms is simply not going to be an effective bulwark against tyranny in this day and age. Red Dawn aside, the federal government does not fear your 30.06. If you really wanted to resist a tyrannical government directly, you'd need an organization *at least* on the scale of a state militia or National Guard chapter. So, if we're assuming a strong and tyrannical state, I think we're fucked, frankly.

In a situation that was more chaotic (think USA-as-Iraq), personal arms might make more of a difference. But we're currently swimming in more than enough weapons to arm an insurgency, if it comes to that (and real insurgencies usually need outside sponsors or their own manufacturing capabilities to survive).

Plus, no one gives their troops handguns as their primary weapons. If you want to overthrow the government (or at least keep the option open), complain about the "no machineguns" rule.

Profile

jackofallgeeks: (Default)
John Noble

August 2012

S M T W T F S
   12 34
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 17th, 2025 06:23 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios