Smoking is not.
That said, the 21yo requirement may be unconstitutional as well.
Clearly, you and I both support the second amendment. However, we should recognize when our support of certain associate claims aren't well founded. Bearing arms and being part of a well-regulated militia are American civil rights granted by the Bill of Rights. Purchasing those arms isn't a civil right.[0]
[0] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/second-a...
A ban on the purchasing of arms would definitely infringe on people's individual right to keep and bear them. Yes, an individual right, which is how 18th-19th century courts and political commentators viewed the 2nd before the 20th century "militia only" narrative.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United...
... then when it comes to guns... "Well, of course it includes _purchasing_ those arms, even if it doesn't explicitly and literally say so, because it'd be hard to bear them otherwise, so it somehow _must_ guarantee that, too!"
"Voting in elections is a civil right granted by the Bill of Rights. Access to a polling station isn't a civil right."
That's effectively what you're saying. Rights enshrine access. Things like poll taxes, voter ID, etc. have all been declared unconstitutional because they infringe upon your right. Banning purchasing arms falls in the exact same category.
The entire premise of individuals owning weapons is based on that "well-regulated militia", yet no such entities actually exist in 2022.
This is why DC vs Heller was decided in the way it was. The "well-regulated militia" before the comma meant something totally different than its current meaning.
As an aside, I think that most modern military weapons should be banned, but that is actually not what the 2nd amendment calls for. The right solution to the problem is to amend the constitution, not try to pass gun control laws and see what a court will approve.
If you ignore guns entirely, the US still stands out from other countries with an extraordinarily high rate of non-gun violence. It's more accurate to say that the US has a violence problem in general.
If you're truly interested in solving the violence problem, perhaps examine why the US is such a statistical outlier. And also, perhaps, why other countries like Switzerland have such different outcomes while still having extremely high rates of private gun ownership.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_Switzer...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_civilian_g...
Eg should you be allowed to use - pistols? - rifles? - machine guns? - explosive / armour piercing bullets? - grenades? - nuclear bombs? - chemical weapons? - biological weapons?
Basically I’m asking where is the line drawn.
Because I don’t think the constitution sets such limits, no distinction for weapons of mass destruction, etc yet the country has found ways to limit people holding chemical weapons and more serious ordinance.
Today's citizen-soldier would carry an AR-15 or variant. If there's one modern gun protected by the 2nd, that's the one.
What does a typical modern day infantryman carry as part of a standard kit?
Not Javelins and anti-personnel mines, those are application- and mission-specific. A soldier doesn't just show up at the armory and load up with whatever high explosives they want; they have a standard issued set of gear, and then mission specific gear divided up among the squad.
Armored infantry transport with mounted machine gun and or cannon turret? Anti-air counter measures? I have no idea how that fits in an individual soldier's kit. At a minimum, they're not bearable arms.
It doesn't mean all those other specific items aren't protected, but if you want an answer on an item-by-item basis, I don't know what to tell you.
Separated from philosophical side of things, they are legal to own Federally at least, at $200 a tax stamp. I don't know anything about the jurisprudence wrt to destructive devices.
edit: Another example might be DU ammunition, but I don't know if that's something carried by your typical soldier. I think it's more often in large caliber crew-served and vehicle mounted weapons, but have no actual basis for that.
My actual opinion on the matter is that we need a national conversation and some sort of constitutional convention to decide more definitively what the purpose(s) of gun rights should be.
Note that I said “what purpose” rather than “what rights”. I think a lot of people (not everyone, but most) skip this part and go straight to “I want to own select-fire rifles” or “large capacity magazines should be banned” before answering what the allowable purposes of private gun ownership should be.
I think if we enshrine in the constitution the right to own/bear arms for enumerated purposes, that the details will naturally just fall out from that choice.
Some examples of what we could choose from (mix and match to your liking):
1) There is no purpose for private gun ownership of any kind.
2) People should be allowed to own guns for private museums/galleries; historical/scientific/artistic collections.
3) People should be able to own guns for sport target shooting (Olympic shooting, IDPA, etc)
4) People should be able to own guns for hunting.
5) people should be able to own guns to defend their homes.
6) People should be able to own guns to defend themselves when they are out and about.
7) People should be able to own guns to bolster national armory against foreign invasion.
8) People should be able to own guns to attempt to overthrow their own government if they deem it necessary.
For example, if someone picked only something akin to #2, then likely guns would have to have firing pins and/or parts of the trigger mechanism removed.
If the people chose to allow guns for sport, perhaps the government would store your privately owned guns for you at sporting facilities.
If the purpose of private gun ownership is to empower citizens to overthrow a tyrannical government, then no registration process should be warranted for destructive devices like javelins or SAM batteries.
It sounds like your limitations match most closely with #7. In which case it seems like if that was the ONLY purpose for private gun ownership it would be reasonable for the government to store your guns in their own local armories and allow you to pick them up in they declare a national defense event.
If purpose of private gun ownership is to allow me to defend myself when I’m out and about, perhaps I should be allowed to carry a pistol when I’m at the bar. While I’ve never personally been in a situation where I’ve said “You know what would have made that go better? If I had a gun.” … I’ve only gotten in situations close to that when I’ve been out drinking late at night. Not allowing me to defend myself at my workplace, school, or bar kind of defeats most of any personal protection objectives.
If the goal is to only allow home defense, perhaps we only need to allow long guns (rifles, shotguns) and can still ban handguns. Perhaps every casing could be serialized and every transaction recorded and annual inspections done for storage conditions and safety adherence.
This is non-sequitur to me. You're describing having the ability to immediately and effectively go to war with the US military and the entirety of the federal government. That's an absolute extreme. In reality, there would be A LOT of steps before that.
I'm in the #8 camp, but rephrased more generally to something I'm sure you've heard- People should be able to own guns to fight back against tyranny. At the absolute extreme, yeah, I'll admit that that includes potentially overthrowing the government, but in reality the scale is much much smaller.
Meaning, people should be able to own guns to bolster their community's defense from both foreign AND domestic threats. The few times that the 2nd Amendment has successfully been put in practice (wrt to fighting the govt), it was against corrupt local governments completely disconnected from any kind of heavy military hardware or active personnel.
I think stepping back and thinking about what "community defense" looks like, structurally, is a good exercise. You'll find that spread out in towns throughout the country, we have caches of equipment and weapons in local armories. In a "defense" emergency, that becomes the local "military gear co-op". A person provides what they can in the form of equipment, supplies, and weapons, and fills in the gaps with the armory. Other community members who are uh... overstocked... on guns and ammo give to the armory for others to use. Again, not at all limited to weapons and ammo, but that's what I'm focusing on here for the sake of simplicity.
--
Back to the extreme end- what does overthrowing a tyrannical federal government look like in reality? It doesn't just start out of nowhere with large scale conflict with the US military. It starts with balkanization, communities isolating, picking sides, pooling resources.... over time increasing violent attacks turning into gun fights, spread throughout the country. By the time a direct open conflict starts with a state or federal government, there is no single State or US military, there is no rule of law, and heavy military hardware is spread out among factions.
So while the 2nd Amendment might not be interpreted to mean "Your right to a SAM battery is constitutionally protected", if the extreme purpose of it becomes reality... you'll get your private SAM battery.
One last edit:
A non-exhaustive list of Things I think the 2nd Amendment (or the philosophy behind it) specifically protects:
- An infantryman's personal weapon (infantryperson? community defense is everyone's responsibility) and all equipment/accessories needed to maintain and operate it.
- Typical survival gear: backpacks, boots, mess kit, knives (bayonets! not just for stabbing; they're often multi-function tools), tents, etc
- Typical protective gear: helmets, ear plugs, goggles, body armor/plate carrier
Taken from my nowhere-near-complete understanding of contemporary gear. In 200 years, replace "rifle" with "phased pulse blaster" and "body armor" with "personal energy shield" if we're still stupid enough to be going to war with each other then.
“The constitution”, as a written document, doesn’t put any limits on anything, because it’s irrelevant in practice, and constitutional law is pure kayfabe.
The real constitution, in practice, is the rulings of the Supreme Court, which has absolutely unlimited latitude for “interpreting” the written document however it wants.
Nothing in the constitution grants the supreme court this power.
Judicial review was a power seized by the courts in Marbury vs Madison.
Theoretically, congress could act to limit the purview of the supreme court at any time.
Doesn’t matter. They have this power, in actually existing reality.
> Theoretically, congress could act to limit the purview of the supreme court at any time.
Sure, they could try. And the Supreme Court would strike down the law they pass. Then we’re in full-blown Venezuela-level constitutional crisis territory where nobody agrees who legitimately holds power, and it’s impossible to predict what would happen.
Isn't the balance to this that congress and the executive branch can restructure the courts? Eg. add justices, set term limits, etc.
Prior to 2008, case law was pretty clear that all of these could be heavily restricted or regulated at the discretion of the state or the federal government, if they ever chose to. Prior decisions effectively gave states enough power to ban all guns if they chose to; DC's near-total gun ban was in effect from 1976-2008.
Yeah, this is the point of insanity; so long as people continue to believe this, there will be a school shooting in the US every few weeks. That's what people mean by "the US has chosen this".
We should just move the age of majority to 24 or so. Guns and voting would start there. Vices and contracts would be some sliding scale.
A 16 year old can be licenced to drive a car which is a potentially deadly killing machine.
A 17 year old can join the US Military today, use firearms, fight and die for their country and if needed; kill their own countrymen if politicians deem some citizens are a threat.
An 18 year old can vote and determine who should run the country then they go back to watching TickTok 24/7.
A 17 year old cannot have a beer.
There is something wrong with all of that, today driving a car, voting and entering the military should all be the age that is required to legally buy a beer.
I ask genuinely - when exactly and where? Voting age was lowered in 1971 to 18, it used to be higher.
24 is 6 extra years of maturing. That will save a lot of lives (not just mass shootings, but gang violence and suicides). And 24 better reflects reality in terms of adulthood.
Not only that, but it's palatable politically. As long as it goes with voting age and other rights, then gun owners are more likely to go along with it. Make some exceptions that work for young hunters, and people won't feel left out.
If anything, it's likely to see pushback from the left because they want lots of people voting from a young age. But I don't think the overall electoral decisions will be any worse by making people wait 6 more years. The left will just adapt and move on (e.g. more focus on struggling families and less on cultural/identity issues).