Analogizing Over Constitutional Rights


Elsewhere in the Boston Globe, Ed Fitzpatrick takes up the topic of requiring a license to purchase ammunition.  This part is especially telling about the gun-control lobby’s point of view:

The study noted a gun without ammunition is no more dangerous than any other blunt object. But “unlike the public health view on drug policy, which recognizes the importance of limiting access to both the agent of harm (the narcotic) and the instrument of delivery (for example, syringe), gun policy has focused primarily on limiting access to the instrument of delivery, firearms,” it noted.

The study said guns and ammunition are more likely to be used in violent crimes when they’re in the hands of felons (such as Charlie Vick) and others prohibited from owning weapons

Frankly, I take this to be evidence of an intention to infringe, when it comes to gun regulation.  Drugs are not explicitly protected on the Constitution, guns are.  To equate the two plows right through the Bill of Rights and steals the base of asserting that both drugs and weapons are inherently harmful.

Please consider a voluntary, tax-deductible subscription to keep the Current growing and free.

As for the likelihood of crimes, that’s pretty much a tautology.  It would be a pretty useless regulation that didn’t forbid ownership of an item to people who were more likely to abuse that right.  Even so, the fact that people who tend toward crime will be more likely to use an item for illicit purposes doesn’t justify making it a crime for other people to buy it without a license.

  • Rhett Hardwick

    I can see a huge growth in the market for “unregistered” ammunition.

    • ShannonEntropy

      Obama was the best thing that ever happened
      to firearm manufacturers:

      And if a “Let’s ban ammo” guy ever gets elected POTUS
      shares in those companies will *sky-rocket*

      A good time to buy shares in ?? :

      It is if you think Trump loses in 2020

      • Rhett Hardwick

        The right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”. Sounds like infringement to me.

        • bagida’wewinini

          “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.”

          I read this as protection for the states militias to have its members armed and not as an individual’s right. At the time of the amendment’s writing there was no professional military. The militia was what was available at that time. The words ,‘the people’, refers to all citizens as in ‘we the people ‘ as a group and not as individuals.

          • Justin Katz

            I don’t believe the historical record bears that reading out, and I know Supreme Court rulings contradict it, but let’s grant the premise that the “militia” clause is the operative one. In the absence of a professional military, one would expect people to have and keep their own weapons, including the ability to use them and become proficient with them. If once you may have had an argument that this was left to the states to regulate within the scope of their own sense of the “militia” clause, over-application of the 14th Amendment wipes that distinction away.

            In any event, if you believe that was the correct reading and that times have changed such that we do not have an individual, natural right to keep and bear arms, the answer is simple: amend the Constitution.

          • bagida’wewinini

            Those Supreme Court rulings may not stand forever. We’ve seen recently how an activist court can overturn a precedent.

          • ShannonEntropy

            Exactly why we need The Donald to get re-elected: so he can replace RBG and maybe some of those other roastie activist gal justices with an originalist or four

            [ Breyer is an honorary ‘gal’ ]

            Scalia once wrote that the most destructive case ever to society overall was Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86 (1958)

            There the Warren Court basically said they didn’t give a shiite what the Constitution or the Federal Law said; they were gonna vote the way they thought was best

            We’ve been trying to recover from that ever since and thanks to Trump we might just get there

          • bagida’wewinini

            I wrote about recent decisions overturning precedent such as in Janus v. AFSCME in 2018 overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) with Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch in the majority 5-4. Even more recently as in right now the conservative majority overturned Nevada v. Hall (1979) with the usual suspects voting in the majority 5-4 decision. Brett (I like beer) Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy as the newest of the conservative activists.

          • ShannonEntropy

            Nevada was decided by the activist Burger Court and was so obviously in violation of the XI th Amendment that even a layman like me could see it needed to be overturned

            If this is what you mean by “activist” i.e. a return to the original & obvious plain reading of the Constitution, we need a heckuva lot more of it

          • ShannonEntropy

            Justin is totally correct here

            One of the main arguments against individual gun rights centers around The Second Amendment’s use of the term militia. In George Washington’s time, militias were considered part of the very fabric that kept our young nation intact. In the beginning, every male between the ages of 16 and 60, were considered part of the militia. They were required to have a weapon and enough supplies on hand, in the case of a call to arms.


          • bagida’wewinini
          • ShannonEntropy

            You forgot to finish that sentence:

            “and…The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized.