Carpenter I appreciate the moderate tone of your response. Given the language of the 2nd amendment, the question that continues to be presented to us as a society is not whether "the people" have a right to possess arms, but what is the right of the state to limit the right to "keep and bear arms"? It is my belief, which is a valid as those holding opposing opinions, that a state can limit this right without infringing on the fundemental right. All rights have some limitations (Can't yell fire in a theater; Can't own a bazooka, or automatic firing weapon) so the question is to what degree can the state who is charged with protecting ALL the citizens, limit the right of those who carry a weapon only for their own defense? I would certainly prefer not to see open carry. If I am in a room of 100 people, and 40 are carrying side arms, I do not feel safer than if no one had a gun. Again, this is just my own feelings based on my personal experiences. With full appreciation of your position, I think that you would have to admit that the NRA with huge monetary contributions from weapons manufactures, stir the pot on this issue. Every election cycle, there is a great dust up about the democrats wanting to take your weapons. That generates huge increasse in guns sales and donations to (mostly) Republican pols that use the issue for fundrasing. With the long period of time that the Dems controlled the house and senate, and occassionally the WH., if the dems wanted your guns that would have had them already. All the 2nd amendment brew ha is usually associated with marketing from gun manufactures.2nd Amend & Ammo? Well let’s look at what the ATF does nowadays. Why there's already all sorts of restricted items. Can you find belts of 50s (that would feed a mini gun) at Kmart? Seriously, I hope I’ve made my point which is that stuff is already restricted.
One last point, does the SPECIFIC language of the 2nd amendment extend to ammunition? Does the state have a right to retrict the access to ammo? Originally Posted by lawyerinjeans
But I do realize that you talking about basic off the self 45, 38, 9mm whatever. These rounds are basic to basic firearms, so a cold day in hell before those would be restricted. But honestly the good stuff such as a FMJ or Hollow Point round is rather expensive. And that itself is a serious limitation.
But directly to your question, a couple months ago the US Supreme Court allowed the City of San Francisco to exclude Hollow Point bullets. I note that those are considered specialty bullets though, and other than shops not being able to sell inside city limits, entirely unenforceable, unless folks are caught with them.
You comment on open carry. I smiled. You're an atty. I know you see folks open carry, so what's the issue? Granted I'm teasing you about court bailiffs, but what’s the difference if someone is adequately trained? But open carry has been around since before the constitution. So that’s that. Live with it.
You bring up the issue of someone might yell fire in a theater. So should we close all the theatres? That’s another blanket approach.
The NRA; well, if gun control folks wouldn’t stir it up, would the NRA have a reason to even exist?
Ok now I’m done poking fun at you. Note that I tease attys mercilessly regardless of venue.
The right of the state to limit:
Now you're on the right track. Ignoring the recent San Francisco case (which was a specifically targeted thing of mil spec bullets), why is whatever comes up blanket limitations? That's the problem. The 2nd amendment simply prevents blanket restrictions. So let’s get to the real issue: The problem is either criminals (or folks that haven't learned to operate a tool). Honestly, the only issue is keeping criminals from guns. So how do you do that without infringing the rights of Joe or Josephine Citizen?
So look at other ways. I note that felons can't carry (at least they're not supposed to). So how can you prevent other folks? You have to take away that civil right on a case by case basis. For felons, a judge has signed off. Declaring someone insane? Has to have a judge sign off. The only way to take away someone's civil rights in the US is to have a judge sign off. There’s simply no way to cheap out and make blanket declarations.
However, let’s look at the old Brady bill. Certain types of firearms were declared mil spec. That was a nicely directly targeted item. Not a 2nd amend problem. So manufacturers modified designs to fall just below those new rules. Gotta love American ingenuity.
Thus, my closing point, actually a question, How can the gov. enact, and actually enforce, restrictions on having guns, without violating the rights of other citizens? They really can’t.
But still, most cities have a firearms not allowed to be discharged law.
Amusingly, NKC has one that fails to allow an exception for self defense.
So is this not govt. restricting activity?
But it’s a shame that the only folks this stuff impacts are “normal” citizens, as criminals will still get their weapons from elsewhere, so the whole thing is an exercise in futility.
