Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4949
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#26 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:00 pm

inomaha wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 12:52 pm
Why is it the second gets this sort of review and not the other amendments in the bill of rights? I say it's only because people are making a specious claim in an effort to undermine it. Apply any of the same logic to the other amendments and it would be dismissed out of hand.

You're only allowed to exercise your free speech if you get a university degree that includes proper English courses.

You're only allowed the freedom of religion if you've gone to divinity courses.

You don't have to quarter military members if you've proven you're a valid citizen of good standing.

etc., etc.

The Bill of Rights are individual rights of the citizens, not to be restricted by the state, the only reason to believe otherwise and to pick away with semantics is because the person wants to take a way the rights of individuals protected by the constitution without going through the impossible task of a constitutional amendment.

They would have never bothered to draft the Bill of Rights except they new people would at some time pervert the constitution and forget that it's purpose was to restrict the state and not the individual. If you view the constitution from that aspect, that if in doubt, the individual is always above the group, everything makes more sense and you begin to see the ulterior motives of the authoritarians. The 2A is not the only under attack and will not be the last.
The explanation is simple. Bullets kill. Speech doesn't, even if you have really, Really, REALLY bad breath!
Religion DOES have restrictions--ancient Jews were summoned to sacrifice animals to their God. They can't do that. Polygamy and Polyandry are outlawed, as is, clearly human sacrifice.
Speech has restrictions and limitations, both civil and criminal.
Even in Heller, Scalia stated that NO rights are absolute and all have limitations. That's established law.
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4949
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#27 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:03 pm

CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:37 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am

I think the argument that "Well-regulated" means merely "well-trained" is a really long stretch. While language has changed quite a bit since 1787, it hasn't changed that much. It's also totally illogical that they would have written a clause allowing for private armies outside the control of Federal, State, or Local governments. And, right from the beginning, President Washington was forced to put down such armed rebellions.
wrt to the regulation question, I would say that there were the Regular Militia and the Irregular Militia during the war. The Regulars wore uniforms, slept in tents, and drilled so they could maneuver effectively as a group. The Irregulars were the farmers and other rural folk who did not train often, as they were farming and so on. The Regulars were paid but the Irregulars often weren't. They wanted the Regulars to be well-regulated so as to ensure the security of a free state.

When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
CDFingers, you gotta be kidding! Madison WROTE the 2nd and he was a slave-owner from Virginia! The idea that "Free State" meant free vs slave is ludicrous! Sorry, pal, but that just doesn't fly! Madison wanted, in part, militias to PUT DOWN slave rebellions--remember? Slave-owner?
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 17410
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#28 Post by CDFingers » Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:49 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:03 pm
CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:37 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am


When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
CDFingers, you gotta be kidding! Madison WROTE the 2nd and he was a slave-owner from Virginia! The idea that "Free State" meant free vs slave is ludicrous! Sorry, pal, but that just doesn't fly! Madison wanted, in part, militias to PUT DOWN slave rebellions--remember? Slave-owner?
This is why I used the verb "to explore." There are lots of interpretations, such as "free" from tyranny, such as the Brits being expelled, where we have seen after that, that the central government could come in and suppress a rebellion against a booze tax. Also land "free" for the taking describes the genocide then under way where superior weapons technology could be used to exterminate or expel the native inhabitants from the land. It might be that "free" state means a place where citizens may live under those laws freely. When the population is armed, it's tough to disarm them, so maybe Madison thought it best to codify the RKBA, something he could not fight. Live free or die. A short but interesting amendment with lots of scholarship around it.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments muddy things up, so I interpret them to say that citizens may have rights that are not listed, and that states may make what ever laws they want, but then the SCOTUS will say whether they're constitutional--again, California has had two laws made by the People over turned as being unconstitutional. Ultimately the Court must clarify the meaning of the Second.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Take a little powder, take a little salt
put 'em in my shotgun when I go walkin' out

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4949
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#29 Post by YankeeTarheel » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:35 pm

CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 7:49 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 6:03 pm
CDFingers wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 10:37 am
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am


When looking at the Second, I think it important to explore what is meant by a "free" state. I see free vs slave, and that was and remains an influence block in Congress, a block which led to the American War of 1861. So, the security of a free state may in fact guard against the forces that eventually led to conflict in 1861. It is interesting to speculate whether the States' regulations with respect to their own militias lies at the bottom of "well-regulated" when we consider the slavery question and border states.

wrt the Fourteenth, both Heller and McDonald incorporated the Bill of Rights against the states, but we haven't see that enforced, especially in my state of California.

CDFingers
CDFingers, you gotta be kidding! Madison WROTE the 2nd and he was a slave-owner from Virginia! The idea that "Free State" meant free vs slave is ludicrous! Sorry, pal, but that just doesn't fly! Madison wanted, in part, militias to PUT DOWN slave rebellions--remember? Slave-owner?
This is why I used the verb "to explore." There are lots of interpretations, such as "free" from tyranny, such as the Brits being expelled, where we have seen after that, that the central government could come in and suppress a rebellion against a booze tax. Also land "free" for the taking describes the genocide then under way where superior weapons technology could be used to exterminate or expel the native inhabitants from the land. It might be that "free" state means a place where citizens may live under those laws freely. When the population is armed, it's tough to disarm them, so maybe Madison thought it best to codify the RKBA, something he could not fight. Live free or die. A short but interesting amendment with lots of scholarship around it.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments muddy things up, so I interpret them to say that citizens may have rights that are not listed, and that states may make what ever laws they want, but then the SCOTUS will say whether they're constitutional--again, California has had two laws made by the People over turned as being unconstitutional. Ultimately the Court must clarify the meaning of the Second.

CDFingers
I dunno. I think in the context of the time the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written, "Free State" has a meaning that is pretty obvious and compelling. It's not metaphysical at all, and they were talking about citizens (which slaves were not recognized as) of states that engaged in self-rule, who elected their leaders, and didn't have authority imposed on their states by tyrants or outsiders. Remember, too, that until after the Civil War, it was "These United States" after which it became "The United States", from a collection of self-ruling states voluntarily joining together, morphing into a nation, after 1865, where states were more like provinces than independent entities.
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
Evo1
Chatty
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Jan 05, 2014 4:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#30 Post by Evo1 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:56 pm

Two problems with the logic of the original post. The first, as has already been pointed out, is in the meaning of 'well-regulated'. In this context, it does not mean 'controlled by a regulating authority'.

Far more fundamentally though is that the only thing that 'well-regulated' refers to in the Amendment is the militia itself, not the right to keep and bear arms. No possible logical reading based on any accepted linguistic convention in the English language would have it mean that. The militia itself, in terms of organization, participation, drilling, etc., was meant to be 'well-regulated'. The fact that the Founders believed such an organization to be central to the maintenance of a free state is merely the justification for why they believed the basic personal right to keep and bear arms deserved protection. So, unless you plan on participating in any organized militia activity, you need not worry about the meaning of the phrase 'well-regulated', or what agency regulates the militia, in order to otherwise exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment. Your private right to own firearms, or to carry a firearm for personal defense, is not a militia activity or part of militia service, and therefore not touched by the phrase 'well-regulated' in the Amendment. It is instead touched by the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

User avatar
NoEyeDeer
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 66
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2018 5:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#31 Post by NoEyeDeer » Tue Jul 10, 2018 10:48 pm

methodmissing wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:42 am
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
This is the sense of "well-regulated" in the parlance of the times. Meaning "Well-functioning", "operating to specification", "possessing all necessary features and faculties."
Quite correct, and may I also add to the list "adequately supplied".

User avatar
SilasSoule
Chatty
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:30 am
Location: Live overseas, own a little land in northern Nevada.
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#32 Post by SilasSoule » Wed Jul 11, 2018 2:02 am

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 8:08 am

I think the argument that "Well-regulated" means merely "well-trained" is a really long stretch. While language has changed quite a bit since 1787, it hasn't changed that much. It's also totally illogical that they would have written a clause allowing for private armies outside the control of Federal, State, or Local governments. And, right from the beginning, President Washington was forced to put down such armed rebellions.
If the British government had directly controlled colonial militias, the revolution would probably not have been possible. So why would the founders insist that only government-controlled militias were covered when they wrote and ratified the 2nd amendment? And if that is what they intended, why wouldn't they explicitly state that?

True, these militias mostly were controlled by the town or local governments, but not everyone supported the revolution, so it was not certain who was going to show up or if the town's militia would participate at all. Basically, the militias that fought the British were made up of people who favored independence.

"In October of 1774, following the lead of the Worchester County Convention, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress called upon all militia officers to resign their commissions under the old Royal Government and for new elections to be held. This effectively purged the officer corps of loyalists.

They also called upon the towns (most of which supported one or more companies of militia) to set aside a portion of its militia and form them into new, special companies called minute men.

Minute Men were different from the militia in the following ways:

While service in the militia was required by law, minute men were volunteers.
The minute men trained far more frequently than the militia. Two or three times per week was common. Because of this serious commitment of time, they were paid. One shilling per drill was average. Militia only trained once every few months (on average) and were paid only if they were called out beyond their town, or formed part of an expedition.
Minute Men were expected to keep their arms and equipment with them at all times, and in the event of an alarm, be ready to march at a minute's warning - hence they were called "minute men"."

https://www.nps.gov/mima/learn/educatio ... te-men.htm

"No one knows for sure how many Americans remained loyal to Great Britain. John Adams, the Massachusetts political leader, thought that about a third of the colonists supported independence, a third supported Britain and a third supported neither side.

Today many historians think that only about twenty percent of the colonists supported Britain. Some colonists supported whichever side seemed to be winning.

As many as thirty thousand Americans fought for the British during the war. Others helped Britain by reporting the movements of American troops."

https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/r ... 54933.html
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

User avatar
TrueTexan
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 13371
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2012 7:28 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER: The "Crazy" part of Denton Texas
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#33 Post by TrueTexan » Wed Jul 11, 2018 5:31 pm

We have to look at the times the Second Amendment was written and the history before it. The men writing the constitution were all well educated and very aware of their history. They didn’t want a standing Army. Therefore they went with the idea of the “Well- Regulated Militias. These are the drilled and trained Militia. Very much a part of theBritish History going back to medieval period. with the English longbow yeomen. Henry VIII complained the yeoman were playing to much nine pins and not practicing their longbow skills to protect the country.

The idea of the militia carried over to the colonies since there was no real British army here until the Seven Years war or as we know it as the French and Indian war. The War of Independence left a very bad taste toward having a standing army and putting so much power in the hands of the Federal Government. So there comes the idea of the regulated militias under local control.

The second part of the Amendment the Right to keep and bear arms. Two very major things about this. the first during the start of the War the British marched on Lexington and Concord. They were not just after Sam and John Adams but the powder shot and firearms stored in the armories at those towns. Storing weapons of war at central guarded locations was common in Britain and the custom had carried over in more civilized parts of the colonies. By dispersing the weapons among the militia it is almost impossible for an invading army to collect them. also it means the militia doesn’t ave to meet at a known gathering spot to get weapons.

The other reason for the RKBA was due to at that time fairly current history. In 1745 the Scots rebelled and trigged to put Prince Charles on the throne of Scotland and England. It failed at the Battle of Culloden. Many of the Scots were transported to the colonies as bondsman other imprisoned may just killed. The British passed laws, to prevent any more uprisings, that forbid the wearing of the plaid kilts and also owning any firearms, swords, pike or any other weapons of war by the Scots. The British Army also became an army of occupation and plundered burned and destroyed much of Scotland especially the Highlands. Forcing much of the population to immigrate to the colonies.

With that as recent history for the framers of the Constitution I can see where they decided to have the second amendment as a limit on the power of the central government.
"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley
The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer- Henry Kissinger
May you live in interesting times.- Chinese Curse

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Free State of Nevada
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#34 Post by max129 » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:34 pm

@Evo1 said:

So, unless you plan on participating in any organized militia activity, you need not worry about the meaning of the phrase 'well-regulated', or what agency regulates the militia, in order to otherwise exercise your rights under the 2nd Amendment. Your private right to own firearms, or to carry a firearm for personal defense, is not a militia activity or part of militia service, and therefore not touched by the phrase 'well-regulated' in the Amendment. It is instead touched by the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.
I have learned a lot from this thread - thank you to all who have contributed. At a personal level, I am an unlikely candidate to participate in a local militia, so I can take Evo1's advice and ignore the first subordinate clause in the 2nd Amendment.

As a person who travels between permit allowing States, I still find the lack of common rules a trial, and a legally dangerous trial at that. While my permit allows me to carry in both Nevada and Utah, there are some very common cases where the 'regulations' vary.

The point of this original post was to promote some common desire with others. In that sense, it is a failure. No one seems to think there is any probability, and also, any common rule set would become a target in itself by the antis. After consideration, I think this is correct.
Image

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 4949
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#35 Post by YankeeTarheel » Sat Jul 14, 2018 8:34 pm

Silas you must remember: Everyone of those colonial militiamen were considered traitors by GB and would have been executed as such.

Because the ONLY acceptable excuse for treason is...winning! (Which the colonies did).
"Fascism comes along when the rich people get the generals to help them stay in control." -- Woody Guthrie
My son says: "Don't argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!" -- YT

User avatar
SilasSoule
Chatty
Posts: 1665
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2015 7:30 am
Location: Live overseas, own a little land in northern Nevada.
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#36 Post by SilasSoule » Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:12 pm

"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin
"When and if fascism comes to America... it will be called, of course, ‘Americanism'." - Halford Luccock
"Liberty without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."
— Mikhail Bakunin

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 17410
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#37 Post by CDFingers » Sat Jul 14, 2018 10:46 pm

SilasSoule wrote:
Sat Jul 14, 2018 9:12 pm
"We must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately."

Benjamin Franklin

Hence, "We the People." There's a rifle behind every third mobile phone.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Take a little powder, take a little salt
put 'em in my shotgun when I go walkin' out

MarkPenn
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#38 Post by MarkPenn » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:12 pm

The phrase "well regulated" did NOT mean subject to supervisory regulation at the time of the 2A. It meant "fit for purpose" or "effective". A well regulated clock keeps correct time. This meaning is NOT IN-consistent with being trained or supervised by competent officers. Training and supervision are apt to contribute to making fit for purpose. The clock-maker may have to observe, adjust and observe until the clock keeps time. The real point here is to search diligently for the original meaning of the phrase "well regulated" and avoid the temptation to project upon that term whatever one might like to believe would be a desirable meaning.

The OP makes a good point. We COULD achieve some national uniform floor by having Congress act on its power to "organize" the militia and to "prescribe the discipline" for the militia. It's an idea worth discussing. Arguably, it wouldn't be a bad idea for Congress to prescribe the teaching of elementary gun safety. However, there are obvious problems with carrying this idea to some considerable level - e.g., NRA First Steps Rifle; or, Carry Outside the Home. The result is apt to be unacceptable to everyone. If the standard were set at the level of DC, then all 50 states' gun owners would be unhappy. If set at the level of VT, then DC and the 49 sister states would be unhappy. There is simply no level at which a majority would be satisfied.

There is a solution, nevertheless. We find its seeds in the mess we call bilateral Reciprocity.

Imagine the two most stringent jurisdictions - DC and NYC - met to negotiate the MOST rigorous standards, declaring them the "Gold" standard for CCP. Suppose a dozen states - NY-Upstate, NJ, MD, . . . - met to negotiate the NEXT most rigorous standards (somewhat short of those adopted as the "Gold" standard) designating them the "Silver" standard for CCP. And, then, a couple dozen states - PA, OH, MO, . . . - met to negotiate the LOWEST level of standards designating them "Bronze". Finally, there would remain the dozen or so non-permit states.

The scheme here is that at each level the jurisdictions negotiate in good faith to form a consensus around a standard to which they will grant reciprocity. This notion is critical; e.g., DC and NYC must agree that they will grant one another reciprocity - or, more precisely - that they will grant reciprocity to any jurisdiction that issues a CCP that meet the "Gold" standard.

Let's suppose that MD elects to join the Silver coalition (a concession to residents of its Western counties). It MAY, nevertheless, also issue "Gold" CCPs as an accommodation to Eastern county residents who have occasion to carry in DC or NYC. It is essential that DC and NYC honor MD Gold CCPs. Any jurisdiction would be free to up-/down-grade its requirement by act of its legislature. E.g., DE might upgrade from Silver to Gold. CA might downgrade from Silver to Bronze. The polity of each jurisdiction would forever retain its sovereign power to alter its standard.

The criteria for each standard - training, testing, qualification - would evolve according to a consensus of the participating states. E.g., the criteria for a Silver CCP might evolve up-/down-word according to the conclusions of subscribing jurisdictions as to the experience (favorable or otherwise) of the states adopting higher/lower standards. Bronze states would have a presumed propensity to drop their requirements and become permit-less.

Anyone could secure a permit at any level to which he is willing to train, test and qualify. Nevada - a "Silver" state - might offer an optional Gold card for the convenience of its residents - and visitors - who have occasion to travel to NYC or DC.

Presumably, numerous residents of Bronze states would voluntarily train-up, test and qualify for a Silver CCP (in their own or a neighboring state) to extend the extent of territory in which they enjoy reciprocity.

I envision some such scheme as one worthy of consideration by reasonable voters within 1 standard-deviation of the mean. Gun-control extremists will object that it promotes carrying of arms which is objectionable as a matter of principle. Gun-rights extremists will object that it is not Vermont-carry. These objectors simply exclude themselves from participation in the discovery of any solution.

Democrats - the traditional defenders of states' rights - should see such a scheme as workable. Most intellectually honest voters recognize that this scheme avoids the "race-to-the-bottom" argument about "National Reciprocity". It's all very well to defend the native Vermont resident responsibly to carry in Times Square but quite another thing to admit of a resident of Queens to do so. Very well, if the Vermont resident wishes to carry in NYC then he must qualify for a Gold card (perhaps offered by neighboring Massachusetts).

The only obstacle to overcome is the natural propensity of legislative committee members to insist on niggling differences in criteria - e.g., whether the qualification score ought to be 95 or 97 out of 100 shots. Such a personality might have to content himself with the idea that a 95 score is good enough and preferable to a Congressional National Reciprocity mandate.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 13270
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#39 Post by sikacz » Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:35 pm

MarkPenn wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 12:12 pm
The phrase "well regulated" did NOT mean subject to .....
<edit snip>
Who are you and why are you ignoring a request to post an introduction?
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

MarkPenn
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#40 Post by MarkPenn » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:22 pm

@sikacz: I just posted an introduction.

I don't particularly resonate with an invitation to introduce myself in order to be worthy of reading. Sounds to me something vaguely like "appeal to authority"; as if what I write/say/think is worthy of consideration to the extent of "who" I am. No, I'm not much of an authority on anything. If I were, I don't think I'd want my thoughts to be weighed in accordance with my (presumed) authority. Nor, by the same token, would I like my thoughts to be dismissed summerily on my lack of authority.

If you have a specific question about where I'm coming from, please ask. I'll be glad to entertain your question.

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#41 Post by featureless » Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:28 pm

@MarkPenn,

Don't take the intro request personally, we just like to have some idea of who we're talking to. Battered gun owner syndrome is even worse if you're a liberal and we get our share of trolls through the place looking to pile it on. If you want to be part of an existing community, introductions are pretty standard social protocol. Welcome aboard.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 13270
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#42 Post by sikacz » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:15 pm

MarkPenn wrote:
Wed Aug 22, 2018 4:22 pm
@sikacz: I just posted an introduction.

I don't particularly resonate with an invitation to introduce myself in order to be worthy of reading. Sounds to me something vaguely like "appeal to authority"; as if what I write/say/think is worthy of consideration to the extent of "who" I am. No, I'm not much of an authority on anything. If I were, I don't think I'd want my thoughts to be weighed in accordance with my (presumed) authority. Nor, by the same token, would I like my thoughts to be dismissed summerily on my lack of authority.

If you have a specific question about where I'm coming from, please ask. I'll be glad to entertain your question.
Here it's called etiquette.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

MarkPenn
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#43 Post by MarkPenn » Wed Aug 22, 2018 5:24 pm

Thank you Chatty and sikacz. I've never been asked to "introduce myself" on any other site; so, I was a bit surprised. Nevertheless, every site is entitled to adopt its own rules of "etiquette" and I'll conform.

I don't regard myself as a battered gun-owner; except, of course, when I cross the river into NJ. I'm not into battering other folks either, be they gun owners or hoplophobes. I'm not interested in trolling. I might be provocative from time to time; but, even then, I think there might be something worth thinking about. However each of us might think about gun-control or gun-rights, these are complicated issues. It benefits each of us to think about them along as may facets as we can think of. Who knows, each of us might learn something.

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Free State of Nevada
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#44 Post by max129 » Wed Aug 22, 2018 9:45 pm

MarkPenn - thanks for your intro on the New Members section. I put my hello there.

And "yes" - the phrase "well regulated" does not in fact imply a 'regulator' - I started this thread and have suffered from my play on words with the 2A ;-)

My intent was to discuss the idea that some standardized reciprocity would benefit others (and especially me.)

I still find it strange that there is no other part of my life where if I drive over a State Border, I switch from being a citizen to a felon. Although now with some States legalizing marijuana, I suspect there is more than one way to be a cross border felon.

So my original intent in this thread was simply to discuss some kind of nationally standardized reciprocity, but my choice of words, which I really did intend as a simple play on words, became a deeply serious discussion.

But, along the way, I discovered my fellow forum members have a lot to teach me. And while I may be an old guy myself, I learn 50 new things every day. And I appreciate, very much, the inputs my brothers and sisters in arms put into this thread.

It was during this thread that I developed the simple syllogism that drives my revised 2A thinking. And I am a better citizen for it.

Thanks for your input.
Image

MarkPenn
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#45 Post by MarkPenn » Thu Aug 23, 2018 9:03 am

@max129: Hello to you too. I agree that too many pixels were spilled on your incidental remark on "regulated"; and I contributed.

Your intended topic got short shrift: "some standardized reciprocity". I responded to this inquiry at some length with my "Gold/Silver/Bronze" scheme of reciprocity. Not the "nationally standardized reciprocity" you had in mind; but rather, something I thought might be much more likely to find political ACCEPTANCE.

Nevertheless, you didn't critique my "Gold/Silver/Bronze" scheme; and I feel deprived of your response. Being a slow learner, I don't (as do you) learn 50 new things every day; so I cherish whatever I can pick up. I would be grateful for your's - and EVERYONE else's - critique. If there is merit in some such idea it would be nice to hear of it. But far more important, what might be the PROBLEMS with such a scheme? There must be some; so the objective is identifying them and seeing if they could be mitigated somehow.
Attachments
image.png
image.png (958 Bytes) Viewed 295 times

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Free State of Nevada
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#46 Post by max129 » Thu Aug 23, 2018 10:29 pm

MarkPenn. The basics of Gold/Silver/Bronze appeal to me. I’ll be more detailed when my phone is not my input device.
Image

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 13270
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#47 Post by sikacz » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:55 am

I'm just not interested in new schemes to limit an individual civil right. I prefer root cause mitigation and community based programs to address violence. It's what The LGC is about.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

User avatar
shinzen
Site Admin
Posts: 17857
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2012 10:52 pm
Location: LGC MEMBER:Northern California
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#48 Post by shinzen » Fri Aug 24, 2018 9:21 am

Your premise that those states in the "gold" category will deal honestly- they won't. Remember that, in those states today, they are virtually no issue as it stands, unless you are well connected, or in the case of CA, you happen to live in a county where the local law enforcement decides to relax the standards. Instead, their requirements will have language such as "will only be issued upon repeated and verifiable threats of bodily harm, with 5 people willing to vouch for the moral character of the applicant" The hodge-podge of state laws is why I can be licensed in UT but not my home state of CA since I moved to a different county.

Rather, develop a national baseline for a universal permit that isn't beholden to a specific state or states who choose to ignore the 2a in the first place. Which can be issued via a competency test and free background check rather than an arbitrary process and expensive fee structure that puts it out of reach for many.
Image

User avatar
max129
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 259
Joined: Sun Jul 08, 2018 1:35 pm
Location: Free State of Nevada
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#49 Post by max129 » Fri Aug 24, 2018 10:40 am

b]sikacz said:[/b]

I'm just not interested in new schemes to limit an individual civil right. ...
MarkPenn, as sikacz has summarized, I too came to this general conclusion. Without rehashing the whole thread, my motivation was derived from the challenge of driving from Nevada to Utah, Arizona and New Mexico. I simply wanted some uniformity as the details of where and when carrying is allowed.

After a lot of discussion ... I did come to the conclusion that sikacz has stated, with some provisos.

1) While I do think of the 2A as a fundamental right, I have seen no one tackle the problem of people we all know who should not own guns (I refuse a flame suit for this). Therefore, I am out of step with others on this forum who do not agree that the Driver's License model should apply to guns (save me the protests, we simply disagree.) As a society, we have decided that some licensing and certification is required for many potential dangerous activities: driving, heavy machinery, dispensing drugs, doing surgery, flying an airplane, and so on. Are these requirements a limit on my rights? Sure. But I would rather not live in a world without them. So I am out of step with many people here who believe that the default is that one can carry unless proven otherwise. I believe that firearms are dangerous enough that some training and certification (preferably without fee requirements at all) should be normal. For example, I have not seen any arguments here that a 3 year old has a hard 2A right. So people do believe some limits are OK (or at least most people ;-) My solution is that all States should be "shall issue" and not "may issue = not issue".

2) I assume some members here also believe that all firearms and ammunition are covered under the 2A. I do not. I am happy with the limitations on fully automatic firearms or incendiary ammunition. I am unhappy that those limitations are Federal, and that they imply a 'thin entering wedge' perhaps leading to more restrictions. I have no idea why rules on Interstate commerce extend to any 100% in-State activity. Thus, in an actually Constitution-driven world, I can only visualize restrictions on fully automatic weapons on a State by State basis - AND if that is OK (some here would argue not), then I can also imagine that California could go "semi-Australia" and still be within the Constitution (wheel guns and bolt/lever/pump rifles only). However, I do find that California's "may issue = not issue" laws are in violation of the 2A - I have no idea why this is not clear to the Courts. Again, I know many disagree - I am simply trying to articulate that this is all a bit more complex than the 2A simply annotates a universal 'right' - and I do know many people on the forum disagree.

OK, I would beg my brothers-and-sisters in arms to accept that the above two provisos come from a rational point of view, even if they stink of pragmatism (my great moral flaw). But moreover, sans pragmatism, they reflect some basic principles. And I respect the contrasting opinions and points of view. The forum seems populated with rational people, not crazies.

The single best argument I have heard about not going to a universal standard for carry States (including some Gold/Silver/Bronze model) is that such an agreement would necessarily:
... 1) Obviate existing in-State laws to create the needed alignment
... 2) Create a single target for the antis to attack and possibly destroy

... therefore a Universal plan on firearms by a subset of the States could be the death knell of the 2A and create a "United States of California".

And let's not ignore the (to me new) concept that any regulation needs to be free or very close to free to avoid societal discrimination. In this, I totally agree with
shinzen

Which can be issued via a competency test and free background check rather than an arbitrary process and expensive fee structure that puts it out of reach for many.
Image

MarkPenn
Helpful Contributor
Posts: 9
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2018 11:31 am
Contact:

Re: Looking for "The Regulator" in the 2nd Amendment

#50 Post by MarkPenn » Fri Aug 24, 2018 11:44 am

@shinzen: You have hit the weakest point that I could think of. How to get at least 2 of the jurisdictions that will want the tightest standards to cooperate. I imagine (for illustration) DC and NYC. (It doesn't matter if the number is 3 or 13; the problem is getting at least 2 to play ball.)

Yes, I'm beginning from where we are today. Yet, I think we are in a good place to start to work toward this goal (assuming it would be a desirable pathway to an eventual excellent albeit imperfect goal).

Look at DC. DC is a Shall-Issue jurisdiction by order of the DC Circuit. That Circuit wrote the handwriting on the wall. Trump has nominated his 2'nd Justice who will probably be confirmed. That will make for a 4+1+4 court with Roberts replacing Kennedy as the swing vote. I see SCOTUS taking a carry case; I think the Hawaii open-carry permit case. I see SCOTUS taking the tiniest incremental steps toward discovering some right-to-carry. The right to be Shall-Issued a permit to open carry seems the logical next step; i.e., Hawaii. (You don't have to agree with the steps in the path that I imagine. Instead, you simply need to imagine that something will change; else, you are fixed in the view that nothing can change and all this discussion is purely academic.)

I imagine that the states will do something like what DC did; i.e., they are Shall-Issue (open or concealed or both) on the most onerous terms they can imagine. FINE! Now, there is a fissure in the wall of Won't-Issue. This state of affairs would be ALMOST good enough to keep the ball rolling. Imagine a MD resident who travels to DC, and NYC via DE and NJ. He COULD get 5 permits to carry where he needs to carry.

How could we improve on this? What if he only needed a permit from EITHER DC or NYC to carry in those two jurisdictions? And, if DE and NJ and MD honored DC/NYC permits? That would - as a practical matter - be GOOD-ENOUGH for the time being.

The problem you raise is that DC and NYC will refuse to grant one-another reciprocity even though their schemes are equally onerous. Even if their schemes were IDENTICAL. How to coerce them into cooperating.

My vision is to go to Congress and propose the following proposition. We, the People of the Gun, are going to pester you into passing National Reciprocity. We will be a thorn in your sides forever. We will politic in the right-to-carry states until we get the Senators we need to pass N-R; and, some of you won't be here to see that happen. OR, you could make one small step. You COULD pass a Bi-Lateral Reciprocity LITE bill (More Flavor - Less Filling) that creates an incentive for each state (and DC) to grant bi-lateral reciprocity to at least 1 state (or DC). And, the incentive is to reach a bi-lateral/poly-lateral agreement on some standard to which any other jurisdiction could "subscribe". If you don't do so, then your Interstate Highway funds (or sewer improvement funds, etc.) get cut-off.

Congress is likely to see Bi-Lateral Reciprocity LITE as much preferred to a continuous fruitless battle for N-R. Bi-Lateral Reciprocity LITE is something that even the most anti-gun constituencies would have a hard time arguing against. If SCOTUS mandates Shall-Issue and NYC and DC have adopted the most onerous standards that their: billionaires; judges; prosecutors; political contributors can all tolerate, what would be the principled objection be to granting these same rich-and-powerful people reciprocity between these two jurisdictions? No race-to-the-bottom issue. No states'-rights issue.

Perhaps there is some better idea by which to coerce a bi-lateral negotiation between the 2 worst jurisdictions; mine is merely one idea that comes up for me. We really only need ONE workable idea - ANY idea - by which to twist the arms of the 2 worst jurisdictions. Think of it this way, if we can't accomplish this tiny task, how do we imagine that the Gun-Fairy is going to grant our wish of N-R or Con-Carry?

Our objective - I think - ought to be to regularize the hodge-podge of state and municipal laws into a regime of a few standards organized into a hierarchy such as Gold/Silver/Bronze. It doesn't much matter if the levels number 2 - 3 - 4 - 5; they just have to be in a hierarchy such that any gun-owner could decide that he needs a certain level of CWP to travel in the jurisdictions where he wishes to travel.

What WE need to do is overcome the twin issues of race-to-the-bottom and states-rights. I am NOT conceding that these are principled or constitutional issues. I don't think they are. They are POLITICAL issues. It wouldn't matter if we got the Constitutional Convention resurrected and the members were unanimous in telling us that race-to-the-bottom and states-rights were un-founded. If we can't get 5 Justices in SCOTUS or 60 Senators in Congress to pull-the-trigger then we are stuck with (my prediction) of a hodgepodge of 51 Shall-Issue permits and bi-lateral reciprocity agreements.


"Rather, develop a national baseline for a universal permit that isn't beholden to a specific state or states who choose to ignore the 2a in the first place." I see the gun-community divided on a federal vs. state approach. And, there is a lot of merit in both viewpoints. I really wish I could articulate an argument as to why one is absolutely right and the other is absolutely wrong. But, tough questions don't usually have obvious answers; if they did, they wouldn't be tough.

There is a clear Constitutional pathway to a federal standard. Congress could invoke its powers to "organize" and "arm" the militia. It could declare that all citizens and green-card holders between the ages of 17 and 71 are members of the unorganized militia regardless of sex, etc. Then, they could "prescribe" the "discipline" for the militia any way they thought fit. Eddie-Eagle for 7 year olds; gun safety for 15 year olds. Marksmanship for 17 year olds. Then, they could authorize militia-persons to go armed at age 27 in every jurisdiction after passing a regime of training and testing. BEAUTIFUL; but, no one would buy into it. The most right-to-carry states would object that Congress's standards were too high; the most hoplophobic would argue that they are too low.

N-R is problematic in that there is pressure to include the Con-Carry state residents plus the NICS-check-only states. Obviously too low for the hoplophobic states. There is no approach to a national standard that anyone will agree to. So, isn't it obvious that picking one or another non-starter proposal is futile - no matter how principled?

What are the elements of: " a competency test and free background check . . . fee structure"? Is this - realistically - of infinite dimensions? Or, are the rational dimensions limited to: safety rules; use-of-force laws; marksmanship; background check; and the level of fee? Whether these elements are implemented by training, testing or both, the number of dimensions are modest.

Now, it's true that the requirement along each dimension could be infinite. E.g., on a live-fire qualification it might be anywhere from 1 out of 1 shot on the paper or 1,000 out of 1,000 shots inside the 9 circle. Yet, realistically, on each dimension it ought to be possible to settle in on a handful of standards; 3 or 6 or so.

What does it matter that the standards for a "Gold" card good in NYC and DC is prohibitive for 99% of the population? Today, 99.999% can't get a CWP in either jurisdiction? Can we move from <0.001% to 1%? If we are convinced that we can't achieve this minuscule move, how do we imagine moving from <0.001% to 50%? Isn't that wishful thinking?

If every state had the OPTION to set-up a program to issue multiple card levels then there would be competition among the states to offer higher-level cards at accessible prices. So, let's suppose a Camden NJ resident can't afford NJ's fees and training prices for a Silver card. Theoretically, he could fly to Nevada and be issued a Silver card there (notwithstanding that Nevada might require only a Bronze card). I hasten to concede that this Camden NJ resident can't afford to fly to NV; he can only afford to drive to Atlantic City. Even so, lots of gun-owning gamblers in Bronze fly-over country are going to decide whether to fly to Las Vegas or Atlantic City to gamble, see the sights and get a Silver card. Trenton will have to consider whether they want these travelers to come to AC or LV. Competition; it's a wonderful thing.

I imagine two simultaneous phenomena moving in OPPOSITE directions. Most states with relatively middling requirements (Silver states) will consider lowering their minimum requirements to Bronze or permit-less. We see this happening today; we started with VT and gradually accumulated 12 - 14 more-or-less Con-Carry states. Will this stop?

At the same time, residents in Bronze states will meet the requirements for Silver CWPs. This is just as it is today where Con-Carry state residents get CWPs from their home state or get a FL/UT non-resident permit. Today, some gun owners get permits from several other states; e.g., I have: PA, MN, SC, FL and UT. Assuming PA were a "Bronze" state I'd seriously consider getting a Silver card for NY-Upstate, NJ and DE. I'd probably consider getting a Gold card for NYC and DC.

As these phenomena are working themselves out the states and FBI would be accumulating empirical data on incidents by holders of CWPs by level of standard. If Gold-card holders don't really have a demonstrably better record than Silver-card holders, the Gold jurisdictions would begin to consider relaxing the agreed upon standard for a Gold card. Conversely, if Bronze holders have a demonstrably worse record than Silver holders, the Bronze states would consider beefing up the agreed upon standard for that level.

We might just learn something from the empirical data that could emerge from some such scheme. We might learn that a little training - or a little more testing - saves lives. Or, we might learn that most folks acquit themselves well enough using common sense.

The gun community needs to figure out how to get from where we are toward a foreseeable goal of good-enough; else, we will remain stuck in a place far short of good-enough.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests