Gun Control, what is reasonable?

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

In the media and the left in general, anything published by Harvard is far superior to that coming from any other source since all other educational institutions are far inferior to the Ivy League, Stanford, UC Berkeley, and a handful of other universities. So I was merely doing likewise. The problem as you well know is that all such studies are flawed due to the difficulty. This was accepted for publication in a prestigious journal and is well referenced. To throw it out would mean that we should throw all studies out not matter the conclusions because they all have similar flaws. The point is that there is no better evidence that gun ownership increases violent crime, homicide, or suicide. There is evidence to the contrary. As just noted, Mexico has strict gun laws and there are large gun fights on a not infrequent basis. Great Britain has witnessed increasing violent crime increasing gun control to absolutely ridiculous standards. So gun control is not the answer.

Criminals in all countries obtain guns. So gun control will not control the criminal use of guns. As to the mentally deranged, they often spend considerable time obsessing upon the planned crime before executing it. If criminals can get guns, so will they. The recent crime in Connecticut, the shooting of Rep. Giffords, the one this week, the Colorado movie theater shootings, and several others were committed by people with severe mental problems that even non-professionals could identify. The reasonable solution is to address the mental health issues.

Taking away rights granted in the Bill of Rights or in some way diminishing those rights should be done very carefully. The likelihood of any of us being killed by a mentally deranged individual is vanishingly small. Drowning on the bath tub, dying in an automobile accident, or simply falling are all more likely.

Being reasonable is attacking the actual issues associated with mass homicides not the instruments. There have been cases where drivers purposely mow down pedestrians- not sure if these are planned - but there is no calls for limiting the access to cars but rather addressing mental health. Our mental health system is an absolute disgrace. Such actions will continue until we address mental health no matter whether gun control is enacted or not. Fix the problem.

[Beavah]

Yah, on that stuff we agree, vol_scouter.

[FScouter]

That article was not from Harvard. Its published by an organization of Harvard law students. Yeah, the two attorneys Kates and Mouser lost their credibility at the very beginning of their article when they dismiss the works of others as a mantra, and proceed to list a variety of published papers as being full of misconceptions and factual errors, and effectively dismissing all of them. One doesnt write a credible research paper by exposing a bias in the first paragraph. Still, it is well foot-noted and a lot better than most of the one-side stuff one finds on the typical gun web site.

[HICO_Eagle]

In response to Beavah's claim about no one suggesting confiscation:

 

Sen. Feinstein suggests national buyback of guns

December 21, 2012 | 3:39 pm | Modified: December 21, 2012 at 3:45 pm

Joel Gehrke

Commentary Writer

The Washington Examiner

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said that she and other gun control advocates are considering a law that would create a program to purchase weapons from gun owners, a proposal that could be compulsory.

 

We are also looking at a buy-back program, Feinstein said today in a press conference. Now, again, this is a work in progress so these are ideas in the development.

 

Gov. Andrew Cuomo, D-N.Y., already discussed the possibility of a buy-back law for his state, but he made clear it would be a forced buyback.

 

Confiscation could be an option, Cuomo told The New York Times yesterday when discussing semiautomatic weapons. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option. Permitting could be an option keep your gun but permit it.

 

Australia implemented a mandatory buyback program in 1996 following a mass shooting. The law banned semiautomatic and automatic rifles and shotguns and put in place a mandatory buy-back program for newly banned weapons, USA Today recalls. The buyback led to the destruction of 650,000 gun.

 

Some liberal activists want the policy imitated here. That would be like destroying 50 million guns in America today, the Center for American Progress Matt Miller wrote after noting that Australia eliminated 20 percent of the weapons in the country. The Australian outlaw and repurchase option is one approach. But if Congress balks at banning certain weapons entirely, it could make gun owners an offer they cant refuse. Instead of $200 a gun, Uncle Sam might offer $500.

 

Feinstein also said that that former President Bill Clinton had volunteered, on a phone call, to help her get a new gun law passed.

 

[Clinton] was talking about the battle back in 1993 with the bill that, interestingly enough, was introduced and passed within the year fo 1993 and went into effect in 1994, she said. And, of course, he was president and the White House came alive and was very very helpful in enabling the passage of that bill both in the senate and in the House. So, to have him part of the team again is really quote special for us.

 

[vol_scouter]

F Scouter,

 

So it was important, significant, and erudite that Obama was a Harvard Law Review editor. It is often referenced. As a scientist and author of scientific papers, it is not uncommon to discuss in the introductory section of a paper where the current work agrees or disagrees with other works. Those that are in opposition are in some way decreased in importance. Since law is often more rough and tumble than science, such an introduction is to be expected and does not discredit the work. As noted above in a response to Beavah, making correlations is fraught with scientific problems. The point is that the problem is not the firearm any more than it is the car, which has been used in a similar manner.

[Beavah]

This was accepted for publication in a prestigious journal and is well referenced. To throw it out would mean that we should throw all studies out not matter the conclusions because they all have similar flaws.

 

Yah, had a few minutes now that da Christmas rush is over to look this up.

 

Da article comes from da Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which is not a real journal. It's a student-edited journal affiliated with da Harvard Federalist Society, a small group of conservative and libertarian law school students.

 

Not a reputable journal or an unbiased source. Da science equivalent would be somethin' like da Journal of Creation Science . At best, JLPP would be somethin' like a Fox News affiliate in da legal world. I had never heard of it.

 

By contrast, the Harvard Law Review, while also a student-run publication, has a general audience, a much longer history, and a far more sophisticated pool of authors and reviewers. Despite da students runnin' da editorship and business side, it would be thought of as a real Journal on da academic side of law. Editor of da Harvard Law Review is a prestigious post for a very capable student, someone likely to go far.

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[SR540Beaver]

Twocub,

 

Could you point me to the place in the constitution where the right to vote is guaranteed? I know there are folks who admit that while the right isn't spelled out, it is implied. What I recall is that amendments have been added that state what you can not do to restrict voting, such as race and gender. But there is no right to vote enumerated in the constitution. Other than civil rights at the federal level, the states determine voting rights as all votes other than the vote for President is at the state level or lower.

[Beavah]

Yah, I was goin' to respond to SR540, but I'll leave that to Twocubdad.

 

SR540 did make me go back and re-read Twocubdad's post, though, which I found to be quite a muddle compared to his usual well-reasoned self. Two things he just got wrong, IMHO: da notion of "fundamental" rights, and da notion of "privileges".

 

When we look at notions of rights, there are really two different ways we can look at 'em.

 

One is from a philosophical/religious perspective. That is how Jefferson framed da argument about rights in the Declaration of Independence, eh? That rights are things endowed by the Creator, which are inalienable. They cannot be abrogated by individuals or by states without committing grave sin against the Creator - sin which justifies a vigorous response by us mere mortals in da cause of Justice. In this perspective, it makes sense to call rights "Fundamental", eh? The right to life, to liberty, to pursuit of happiness, etc.

 

But there's no genuine moral system on da planet that would maintain the "right" to bear arms is a God-given one endowed by the Creator, eh? Certainly not Christendom. Maybe some of da fringe sects of Islam, or the Branch Davidians or other wackos. So to talk of bearing arms as a "fundamental" right in this context doesn't make any sense.

 

Da second perspective is da legal / constitutional law perspective in da U.S. Rights in this context are limitations on da scope or authority of government. Congress shall make no law... etc. From this legal perspective, there's no real notion of "fundamental" rights, and that term makes no sense in this context, except as flowery speech by a political lobbyist. There's no "fundamental" limitation of government; all of da constitutional limitations are themselves da subject of limitations, or of amendment. Enumerated rights don't necessarily take precedence over unenumerated ones. Enumerated rights are in fact often dependent on unenumerated ones. Yeh can't exercise your enumerated right of freedom of assembly and worship without also bein' able to exercise an unenumerated right to travel across public lands and jurisdictional boundaries unhindered. Yeh can't exercise an enumerated right to keep and bear arms without bein' able to exercise an unenumerated right to manufacture, transport, or purchase arms.

 

So in neither a philosophical/religious context nor a legal context is da "fundamental" rights notion supported.

 

Da notion of "privileges" is also a bit off. While it has crept into modern parlance from poor use by da public schools ("that's a privilege, not a right"), it's a pretty newfangled and muddle-headed notion.

 

American law and philosophy both presuppose liberty, eh? There's no notion of da government granting privileges to certain select groups of people. That's what a monarchical system proposes, sure. Da king has been granted privileges by divine right, and da king grants privileges to his subjects.

 

Da American notion is very different, eh? It's that individuals are free to do as they please. Buy what yeh want, have da hobbies yeh want, pursue the opportunities yeh want. Philosophically I suppose that pursuit of happiness is a Creator-endowed right, not somethin' that government grants. If you're Wilbur and Orville Wright and yeh want to build a flyin' machine, you don't need to petition for a grant of privilege from da government. Yeh just build somethin' in your shed and go try it out at Kitty Hawk.

 

However, pursuit of happiness is subject to not messin' with others too much, and allowin' them to pursue their own happiness. So at da point when the invention of Wilbur and Orville has become commonplace and everybody is flyin' hither and yon and runnin' into each other and carryin' other people for hire and such, then folks come together to set up some regulation so things run more smoothly. Da unenumerated right of usin' da public airspace for pleasure gets restricted a bit so that others can use da public airspace for commercial transit or defense; or we all decide that some level of training and proficiency is a good idea before anybody jumps into a cockpit and flies over town, because an airplane can hurt folks if mishandled. So da airplane enthusiasts partnerin' with other interested citizens set up reasonable regulation for everybody's well being, instead of being jerks and insistin' that yeh can take away my aileron controls when yeh pry 'em from my cold, dead fingers!

 

Responsible enthusiasts partnerin' with others to ensure safety and liberty, and acceptin' reasonable restrictions on their right to the use the air to achieve those ends. Almost reminds yeh of good citizenship.

 

Beavah

 

[vol_scouter]

Beavah,

 

My apologies to you and others on this thread. Like you, I have been replying to this list between work and family. I did not read the journal title carefully and thought that it was the Harvard Law Review. So the study may or may not be good. It is not worth my time to research the article and its' sources. So it will have to be considered less important. The more prestigious Harvard Law Review has its' own biases though as do many/most journals these days.

 

Once again my apologies.

[Twocubdad]

Article I, Section 2: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States and the Electors shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

 

Amendment XV, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

 

Amendment XVII: The senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years and each Senator shall have one vote.

 

Amendment XXIV: The right of the citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors of President of Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

 

Amendment XXVI, Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied to abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

 

[Twocubdad]

Sorry for the muddling, Beav. My ConLaw classes were more than 30 years ago and swingin' a hammer for a living doesn't give me much call to use it. What I do recall is my dear ol' prof explaining that when you have the facts on your side, argue the facts; when you have the law on your side, argue the law; when you have neither, argue the Preamble.

 

Perhaps my use of the phrase "fundamental right" tilts more in the direction of "unalienable right" while "constitutional right" or "enumerated right" is more precise and what I intended.

 

And I don't disagree with your post in the least in regards to the origin of our liberty and the relationship of limited, Constitutional government to our liberty. Numerous chapters of The Federalists lay out the same argument.

 

But you can't be suggesting there isn't a difference between activities which come under the Article I, Section 8 enumerated powers versus those protected by the Bill of Rights, which was my point.(This message has been edited by Twocubdad)

[SR540Beaver]

So as I said, amendments spell out what you can not use to limit who can vote. If the constitution guaranteed the right to vote, you wouldn't need amendments that say what parameters can not be considered for exclusion. There was a time in our history where only male land owners had the right to vote. Voting qualifications are actually left to the states except for the federal civil rights covered in the amendments saying you can't exclude based on race, gender, etc. States could exclude the vote based on other parameters if desired. That being said, states have been trying to pass voter ID laws to curb voter fraud from illegal aliens and have met with resistence from the current administration. Bottom line is there is NOT a constitutional right to vote as most Americans believe. Their individual states determine who has the right to vote and the states are limited by amendments on what exclusions they can not use.

[Twocubdad]

A distinction with no difference, SR540. I gave you three quotations where the phrase "The rights of the Citizens of the United States to vote..." is found in the Constitution. (And I omitted a fourth, the 19th Amendement -- my apologies, ladies.) I would be surprise if another right has more direct mentions. I'm not sure what more you need.

 

Lesson #2 from my ConLaw professor: the Constitution is not an instruction manual. If you're looking for tab-one-into-slot-A directions, consult the statutes and case law.

 

That the Constitution leaves details -- including voter qualification -- up to the states, doesn't diminish the Constitutional guarantee of a right to vote. Obviously, we've gone to quite some trouble over the years to clarify/secure/expand that right through five different amendments, not to mention "our past unplesantness" as my aunt says. Also note except for the first 10, most amendments give Congress the power to enforce (and consequently define)the amendments through legislation -- hence the various voter rights acts and a whole army of lawyers in the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.

 

I do understand and agree with the concept of "native liberty" which you and Beav -- and, oh-by-the-way, Hamilton and Madison -- express. I'm not a lawyer and am not trained the the art of writing law. However having lived 20 or so years in my father's house and now having spent 20 or so years raising two sons, I can tell you "don't hit your brother with that stick" doesn't mean you can hit him with a shoe. I believe it fair to say most civil rights are given a similar expansive reading, particularly in the past 80 years.

 

 

Could this thread possibly be further off topic?

[SR540Beaver]

Threads are conversations and over time, the subject changes. Besides, there are multiple gun control threads running. The right to vote is NOT in the constitution. Voter qualifications are left to the states to determine. What is in the constitution are what you may not exclude within the population you do grant the right to vote. If states wanted to say as they once did that only property owners could vote, they could do that. But it would be black, white, red, brown, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, male, female, etc. property owners because the amendments say you can not deny a person the right to vote based on those particular criteria. There is indeed a real difference. Now, over time, it has become traditionally held that everyone has a right to vote because in this day and age, people over the age of 18 who are not felons are granted the right to vote. I'd like to add to that list citizens of the US, but certain segments of our society fight any attempt to enforce citizenship as a qualification. But there is no constitutional right as most people assume.

[Beavah]

If states wanted to say as they once did that only property owners could vote, they could do that.

 

Nah. Wouldn't pass muster because it has a differential effect based on race and gender, eh? Yeh can't use property ownership as a proxy for tryin' to exclude a large segment of da black vote because they are less likely to own property.

 

It's true that da Constitution frames voting as more a foundational characteristic of government rather than as an individual "right" (restriction on government). But da trend is as TwoCubDad says, eh? By amendment, we have continued to expand the franchise, and there's no easy goin' back on that.

 

TwoCubDad also missed Article IV, Section 4, sentence 1, eh? Da federal government guarantees a republican form of government to every state. It's a clause with an interestin' history.

 

Beavah