Want to carry a gun in NJ: Get insurance

[Tony Stark]

%%
THEY do, the police;

Individual liability insurance.

 

[Overnight]

This insurance play is nonsense.

The best solution to the fight between 2A and responsible gun ownership? Require safety training for every gun purchased. The type of training required for concealed carry, even for a simple .22 rifle or shotgun.

If you cannot handle it safely, you may not own it. Period.

You must go through rigorous safety training for your firearm before you are allowed to own it.

A perfect example of this nonsense bullshit unbelievable screw-up in the law is Massachusetts. I was a licensed hand-gun firearm instructor here for years, and there was no law requiring live-fire training before being given the concealed-carry certificate.

That is BS! You MUST know how to handle a firearm with live ammo, otherwise your training is pointless in the field with live ammo! GAH!!!! Made my head spin!!!!!!!

 

[Cuddles]

Heller v DC made it clear (for now) that the right to own and bear operable firearms i not an unfettered right. There can be reasonable regulation. But a regulation such as requiring that a gun kept in the home must be kept in an inoperable state was a step too far.

If all firearm ownership requires insurance, would an insurance requirement imposed on someone who truly can not afford insurance and therefore is prevented from legally owning and bearing an operable firearm of any kind be a step too far according to Heller? Possibly, I would think. But requiring insurance on some firearms (semiautomatic, for example) but not on others might be permissible under Heller.

[A dissenting opinion, it may have been Breyer's, in Heller took issue with Scalia's jettisoning of the Second Amendment's introductory clause, which if kept would seem to render the Amendment obsolete. It is apparently not easy to dispense with words so plain and of such clear and unambiguous meaning, because ridding the Amendment of this pesky clause occupied the greater portion of a very lengthy majority opinion. This was such a daunting task that it caused Scalia to trample on his self-imposed label as an "Originalist", and invoke historic English law. Proving that there is no personal conviction nor adherence to principle so lofty it can not be delicately, or otherwise, violated whenever the occasion requires it.]

I believe DC v. Heller nailed down correctly that a "militia of the people" is just that, one made of citizens under no state control yet failed miserably in separating the "well organized" from "the right shall not be infringed".

 

[piezoe]

I believe DC v. Heller nailed down correctly that a "militia of the people" is just that, one made of citizens under no state control yet failed miserably in separating the "well organized" from "the right shall not be infringed".

I like your take on this very much! After having thought about this Heller decision for several years now, I am of the opinion, that Scalia might have gotten by just leaving the introductory clause alone, arguing that it does not in any way render the Amendment obsolete. Because even though we have a National Guard today, that is in no way the same as "a militia of the people." And there can be no argument that the need for a militia could still arise, as it did in the minds of some of the Founders, if insurrection against an overbearing federal government became necessary according to "the people." This is, arguably, what just happened on Jan 6th!, perhaps proving that the idea of a militia is, indeed, not obsolete! But see "well organized". The "militia" that attacked the Capital on the 6th was organized, but was it "well organized"? It would be splitting hairs to say, "Well it wasn't "the people", it was just a wayward bunch of uninformed lunatics." Sadly, uninformed lunatics are a part of "the people." Is an organized band of a a few thousand enough to qualify as "the people" in a land of 320 million?

Leaving the Amendment intact in Heller would have given rise to a true "originalist" interpretation, I believe. Had Scalia left the Introductory Clause alone, there would have been no need for him to retire to his chambers with a bag over his head, which he should have done.

I am, myself, firmly opposed to the "orginalist" approach to interpreting a 200+ year-old Constitution. Personally I think it is lunacy, but then I have not been appointed to The Court..

 

[Cuddles]

I like your take on this very much! After having thought about this Heller decision for several years now, I am of the opinion, that Scalia might have gotten by just leaving the introductory clause alone, arguing that it does not in any way render the Amendment obsolete. Because even though we have a National Guard today, that is in no way the same as "a militia of the people." And there can be no argument that the need for a militia could still arise, as it did in the minds of some of the Founders, if insurrection against an overbearing federal government became necessary according to "the people." This is, arguably, what just happened on Jan 6th!, perhaps proving that the idea of a militia is, indeed, not obsolete! But see "well organized". The "militia" that attacked the Capital on the 6th was organized, but was it "well organized"? It would be splitting hairs to say, "Well it wasn't "the people", it was just a wayward bunch of uninformed lunatics." Sadly, uninformed lunatics are a part of "the people." Is an organized band of a a few thousand enough to qualify as "the people" in a land of 320 million?

Leaving the Amendment intact in Heller would have given rise to a true "originalist" interpretation, I believe. Had Scalia left the Introductory Clause alone, there would have been no need for him to retire to his chambers with a bag over his head, which he should have done.

I am, myself, firmly opposed to the "orginalist" approach to interpreting a 200+ year-old Constitution. Personally I think it is lunacy, but then I have not been appointed to The Court..

Having kept the "well organized militia" portion tied to "the right to own and bear" would've given the government a way to regulate what "organized" means (think Switzerland). Instead, we've got a bunch of psychos shooting up schools, LARPers gunning down civilians, and gang members waging urban warfare.

Hell, I still think righties may buy into the argument as most want to consider themselves as "responsible gun owners" so mandating instruction, psych eval, upkeep, safety, etc, etc... along w/some "gun church" requirements every year or so would split their ranks.

I personally have gone opposite your opinion over time, becoming more understanding of the "original intent" as fascism is rising in the west and the possibility of civil conflict to oust the garbage becomes marginally more likely.

 

[piezoe]

I want to make it clear that in post #24 I am giving arguments that I don't necessarily, or only partially, agree with. I am presenting them as food for thought.

I don't have time to go much further now. My position is that once the U.S. Constitution was ratified, any argument that "militia" in the Second Amendment could possibly mean States' Militias formed to fight against the Federal Government is rendered moot. The only interpretation that makes sense after the ratification of the Constitution is that "militia" means a militia protective of the Federation. The word "Militia" in the Constitution's Second Amendment can not possibly mean a militia formed to fight against the Federal Government.

And here's why. The well known thinking of some of the founders that a state's militia might be needed to rebel against a federal government that had become overbearing and a threat to a state's rights, is immediately rendered moot by ratification of the Constitution, because no constitution preserves the right to revolt! That right is inalienable and is not included in any constitution, nor need it be. Think "Civil War".

Thus any "originalist" Justice examining the the meaning of "militia" in the Constitution who falls back on the pre-constitutional thinking of some of the Founders re the need for a State's militia to protect a State's rights against the federal government is at the same time rejecting the Constitution as ratified. An argument so based would be contradictory and prima facie absurd.

There can be only one rational meaning of militia in the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution, and that is a militia formed to protect the Federal government. Any militia formed to attack the Government would be a revolutionary militia, which is by definition unconstitutional.

The argument I make here renders the Second Amendment obsolete; not obsolescent, but obsolete! It is dead as a door nail, though it lives on through weak thinking. We have the modern equivalent of Constitutional States' Militias in our National Guard. And we have a standing Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, and Coast Guard. We are well protected without 18th Century States' Militias. Our Twenty First Century, Federalizable National Guard has no need to "keep" their M1 Rifles at home. Nor would they need a second amendment to do so.

We don't need a Second Amendment at all. As Scalia magnificently and Forcefully argued in Heller, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. It can't lawfully be taken from us. But it is not an unfettered right (as Heller decided). Heller makes it clear, reasonable regulation of firearms is within the purview of the Federal Government. What makes regulation reasonable? So long as a regulation does not violate our inalienable right it is reasonable. For example, Heller decided it's unreasonable that a DC law required firearms in the home be kept in an non-operable state. Not being able to keep a firearm that you can use under reasonable circumstances is unreasonable according to Heller.

 

[Cuddles]

I want to make it clear that in post #24 I am giving arguments that I don't necessarily, or only partially, agree with. I am presenting them as food for thought.

I don't have time to go much further now. My position is that once the U.S. Constitution was ratified, any argument that "militia" in the Second Amendment could possibly mean States' Militias formed to fight against against the Federal Government is rendered moot. The only interpretation that makes sense after the ratification of the Constitution is that "Militia" means a militia protective of the Federation.

And here's why. The well known thinking of some of the founders that a States' Militia might be needed to rebel against a federal government that had become overbearing and a threat to States rights, is immediately rendered moot by ratification of the Constitution. No Constitution preserves the right to revolt! That right is inalienable and is not included in any Constitution, nor need it be. Think "Civil War".

Thus any "originalist" Justice who falls back on the thinking of some of the Founders re the need for a State's militia to protect a State's rights against the federal government is at the same time rejecting the Constitution. An argument so based would be contradictory and prima facie absurd.

There can be only one rational meaning of militia in the Second Amendment of the U.S Constitution, and that is a militia formed to protect the Federal government. Any militia formed to attack the Government would be a revolutionary militia, which is by definition unconstitutional.

The argument I make here renders the Second Amendment obsolete; not obsolescent, but obsolete! It is dead as a door nail, though it lives on through weak thinking. We have the modern equivalent of Constitutional States' Militias in our National Guard. And we have a standing Army, Navy, Marine Corp, Air Force, and Coast Guard. We are well protected without 18th Century States' Militias. Our Twenty First Century, Federalizable, States' Militias have no need to "keep" their M1 Riffles at home.

We don't need a Second Amendment at all. As Scalia magnificently and Forcefully argued in Heller, the right to bear arms is an inalienable right. It can't lawfully be taken from us. But it is not an unfettered right (as Heller decided). Heller makes it clear, reasonable regulation of firearms is within the purview of the Federal Government. What makes regulation reasonable? So long as a regulation does not violate our inalienable right it is reasonable. For example, Heller decided that a DC law requiring firearms kept in the home be kept in an non-operable state is unreasonable. Not being able to keep a firearm that you can use under reasonable circumstances is unreasonable.

Pardon me if I call that notion ludicrous. We've seen constitutions in several democracies be rewritten by autocrats so it's only as good as the paper it's printed on as long as the system of checks and balance is still in place and states oppose autocratic rule. Do you think this SCOTUS provides a good system of checks and balances reverting settled law or that red states which are unconstitutionally suppressing the vote and imposing religious doctrine care about the document?

Fascists using the state's armed forces and LEO to stay in power is a whole 'nother can of worms.

So sure, an autocrat would like "no insurrection" in the constitution but he may not like the rest of it and could take a giant sharpie marker to it.

 

[piezoe]

Pardon me if I call that notion ludicrous. We've seen constitutions in several democracies be rewritten by autocrats so it's only as good as the paper it's printed on as long as the system of checks and balance is still in place and states oppose autocratic rule. Do you think this SCOTUS provides a good system of checks and balances reverting settled law or that red states which are unconstitutionally suppressing the vote and imposing religious doctrine care about the document?

Fascists using the state's armed forces and LEO to stay in power is a whole 'nother can of worms.

So sure, an autocrat would like "no insurrection" in the constitution but he may not like the rest of it and could take a giant sharpie marker to it.

Let me try to explain this in another way. It is inherent in all constitutions that insurrection is illegal. So there is no possibility that the word "militia" in the U.S. Constitution can refer to a state's militia constituted for the purpose of rebelling against the federal government. Therefore Scalia's discussion of one particular meaning of militia in the Second Amendment according to the thinking of some of the Founders is superfluous. He gives unnecessary attention to it. He failed to realize that in the Constitution it can have only one of the two meanings discussed. This is a weakness in Scalia's argument, IMO..

On the other hand, if "militia" in the Amendment could have the other meaning, than one can use that as an argument that the Second Amendment is not obsolete, because the Federal government does not provide for that kind of militia.

 

[Cuddles]

Let me try to explain this in another way. It is inherent in all constitutions that insurrection is illegal. So there is no possibility that the word "militia" in the U.S. Constitution can refer to a state's militia constituted for the purpose of rebelling against the federal government. Therefore Scalia's discussion of one particular meaning of militia in the Second Amendment according to the thinking of some of the Founders is superfluous. He gives unnecessary attention to it. He failed to realize that in the Constitution it can have only one of the two meanings discussed. This is a weakness in Scalia's argument, IMO..

On the other hand, if "militia" in the Amendment could have the other meaning, than one can use that as an argument that the Second Amendment is not obsolete, because the Federal government does not provide for that kind of militia.

I don't buy the "national guard= militia" argument. Simply put, militia as written was a citizen force that could oppose autocratic/tyrannical rule, be it state or fed.

 

[piezoe]

I don't buy the "national guard= militia" argument. Simply put, militia as written was a citizen force that could oppose autocratic/tyrannical rule, be it state or fed.

What you write of is pre ratification militias of the revolutionary war period.

Scalia jettisoned the part of the Second that includes the justification for the Amendment in terms of militias.

The Second reads:
“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 am going with this: (pg 24 of the Heller decision)
“security of "a free state” meant “security of a free polity,” not security
of each of the several States as the dissent below argued"

Logic and the above leaves me no choice other than to assume the Militia in the Second amendment is, as interpreted in Heller, not an individual state nor collective militia of individual states wanting to overthrow the government.

There is a place for such militias, but it is in extra-constitutional armed revolt, as for example the pre ratification militias that over through British rule.

If the militia of the second Amendment is a militia of states combining forces to protect the "security of a free State," i.e., defend the nation, then those militia have been replaced by the National Guard. One is the replacement for the other, but they are not the same. That I agree with.

My main point is that the Militia in the second Amendment can not possibly be "a citizen force that could oppose autocratic/tyrannical rule, be it state or fed" because those same citizens you write of are citizens of the state or federal government they oppose. Such a force would be extra-constitutional by definition, and therefore not be provided for in the Constitution. Such a post ratification militia would constitute revolt. These lunatics that attacked the Capital on Jan 6th were extra-constitutional. They constitute a revolutionary or insurrectionist force. They are not a 2nd Amendment militia.

The militias you write of did exist pre-ratification, and the tyranny they were fighting was that of the British Crown.

Which brings me to my main point. The Second Amendment is actually obsolete so long as one does not jettison the preforatory clause. Scalia, not so adroitly, did jettison the preforatory clause. That allowed him to retain the Operative clause in the Amendment and avoid having to deal with the prospect that the Amendment is obsolete, as I claim.

The last time we saw an extra-constitutional, organized, citizen militia in the U.S. was on Jan 6th.