Gun control and the Constitution
Also constitutionally suspect are restrictions on magazine size. There is no question that a limit of 10 rounds (as the president has proposed) or seven (as enacted by New York state last month) would impair the right to self-defense. A magazine with 10 rounds may provide adequate protection against a single nighttime intruder. But it may not: What if there are two intruders?
Further compounding the constitutional problem is the fact that the benefit of such limits is questionable. For a practiced and calm shooter, swapping magazines takes no more than a couple of seconds. And a swap may not even be necessary if the shooter has multiple guns, as in several mass shootings in recent years.
While some limit on magazines may be constitutionally permissible, one that falls below the capabilities of guns in common usage for self-defense is probably not. The most popular guns for self-defense take 15 or so rounds in their default configurations. Given the uncertain benefit of restricting magazine size, not to mention the tens of millions of “high capacity” magazines in circulation, something near that number may be a constitutional minimum.
And while there is no question that procedural requirements like background checks are permissible, that does not mean that the government may place an undue burden on the right of law-abiding citizens to protect themselves.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Where does the Federal government get the authority to control people’s personal property?
Where does the Federal government get the authority to us prior restraint in the case of the 2nd amendment?
Is it Fair to punish 120 million innocent people for the actions of a few criminals?
Galt2009 on February 11, 2013 at 6:31 PM
That should be:
Galt2009 on February 11, 2013 at 6:32 PM
All of these issues fall under the heading of “infringement” and are thusly unconstitutional.
Remember that the Second Amendment is a limitation upon the government, not the people.
On this issue we must not bend, must not compromise, not in the least.
This feral government is just about (if not already) ready for the King George III treatment, completely in keeping with the intentions of the Founding Fathers.
turfmann on February 11, 2013 at 6:36 PM
Is there any doubt that if they obtain these controls over the people that it won’t be abused?
The Proppressives want the restraints placed on the government via the Constitution to be under their control.
They would Effectively be removing those restraints and putting them on the people… Why doesn’t anyone see a problem with this?
Galt2009 on February 11, 2013 at 6:44 PM
(if not well beyond)
Ronnie on February 11, 2013 at 6:52 PM
It is our quest to point this salient fact out to them; otherwise we are left with no other recourse than to invoke our Constitutional rights, indeed our Constitutional duty, to make certain that it is preserved.
I truly believe that that is the reason that firearms are being purchased in unprecidented numbers, and conversely why the government is stockpiling ammunition and seeking to infringe upon the Second – there is conflict coming to this land the likes of which we have not seen since the 1860′s.
It’s just that no one wishes to speak it, at least for now. That can change very quickly – just ask Archduke Ferdinand what the likelihood of a World War would be if he took one in the hat?
This government, by its actions, approaches illegitimacy. We have great cause to believe that it is in place by massive and systemic fraud, and that the actions of the White House specifically are made with treasonous intent.
Yeah, I’m serious. Serious as a heart attack.
turfmann on February 11, 2013 at 6:55 PM
The Marxists have tried the same game versus Judge Roy Moore and the Ten Commandments where “Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof.”
The Founders language there is explicit just as with the “shall not be infringed” phrasing of the Second Amendment serving as guardian against tyrants. Those whom willingly would sell out the Second Amendment are traitors to the Constitution. Plain and simple.
viking01 on February 11, 2013 at 7:02 PM
Yes, and it’s extremely frustrating that more people don’t get it, that in their futile attempts to avoid conflict, they are allowing it to “progress” to a point of no return.
In some ways I hope you’re wrong.
But unfortunately, that is more an emotional argument instead of intellectual.
The intellectual side sees a conflict as almost being inevitable.
But just remember that the proppressive’s house of cards has only a shaky foundation in the BSM – once that goes, the whole could come crashing down.
Galt2009 on February 11, 2013 at 7:07 PM
So one of the anti-gunners is posting “One Apache helicopter can take out all you right wingers”
And my reply, as soon as I get logged in there (can’t seem to get FB to connect) is:
“Glad you agree that’s why citizens should be able to own Stinger missiles among other arms!”
Sheesh. Straw men, red herrings, ad-hominems and logical fallacies galore there from the anti-gun crowd. But then, no surprise on that.
ProfShadow on February 11, 2013 at 7:09 PM
Let all politicians who ignored the Constitution be held accountable for their traitorous actions.
trs on February 11, 2013 at 7:10 PM
Related:
Obama politicizes the tragic death of Hadiya Pendleton
Don’t forget: Chicago has some of the most extreme gun-grabbing laws in the country. We’re the only state left without concealed carry. We’re fully Democrat and fully Progressive. Chicago, Obama’s hometown, is the murder capital of the country. A literal Progressive warzone.
visions on February 11, 2013 at 7:21 PM
I believe that the crashing of the house of cards will set insurrection in motion.
When the nanny state is no longer able to furnish the largess of the state confiscated by fiat from the tax-paying citizens (current and future) of this nation, it will be that sector of the citizenry that will erupt into violence.
When the government finds itself powerless to deal with the rioting, etc. they will move upon the inalienable rights of law-abiding citizens.
A grand mal crisis, if you will, not to be wasted.
For it is their specific intent (see: Cloward and Piven) to use the plight of the “poor” as leverage against the entire government to bring it down.
Once the government is brought low, they can then construct a new government according to their political philosophy.
And the “Fundamental Transformation” will be complete.
turfmann on February 11, 2013 at 7:33 PM
No, that doesn’t compound the constitutional problem at all. The Constitution protects our right to keep and bear arms. Whether or not those arms are effective is irrelevant. It is not the job of the government to decide what weapons are effective or needed.
But, then again, I believe the 2nd Amendment is absolute. The federal government has no authority to pass any law concerning weapons ownership at all. Yes, I believe if you want to carry around the same fully automatic weaponry the military does, you are entitled to under the Constitution.
Shump on February 11, 2013 at 7:36 PM