[refurb]

Which states? I mean, if you asked me, California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people, but I’m guessing you don’t agree?

My point is, you have your own political views, but at the same time live in a country with a lot of differing views.

You should feel free to live wherever you want but at the same time realize you’ll never find a place that 100% agrees with all your views.

[ovao]

Oregon and Washington — both blue states — are examples of other states that have begun to lean more heavily into restricting gun rights (whether you agree or disagree with the motivation & justification).

So, agreed, it’s accurate to say that there are examples of different states imposing legislation that restricts some sets of freedoms depending on the state’s political leaning.

[toss1]

>>California’s gun control laws suppress the rights of many people

Seriously?

I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

I've never seen any serious gun proposal that would actually infringe on any actual right. They are all about ensuring that background checks apply to all sales, waiting periods, red flags, etc.

People seem to forget that allowing any mentally ill incompetent full and immediate access to the highest caliber and rate-of-fire weapons at any time is the exact opposite of "a well regulated militia" (citing the exact words of the Second Amendment which grants that right).

Please cite some actual legislation entered for consideration (not right wing "They're coming for our guns" rhetoric) that would actually restrict that right for any sane, stable, and responsible citizen. This is not a rhetorical question, I would like to know if there is any actual such legislation proposed.

And no, I don't consider restricting weapons above certain levels of high power, high caliber, high magazine capacity, high rate-of-fire, etc. to be illegitimate. I actually think it should be a sliding scale of qualifications according to the above criteria, e.g., kid's 22 requires a basic safety course and you're good to go, but semi-auto high-power require solid marksmanship skills, combat training, proof of mental stability from licensed psych, insurance, etc., and all qualifications mean you can be called up for militia service at any time.

So, seriously, under "as part of a well regulated militia", what actual proposed legislation in any state would actually restrict such a right?

[refurb]

Hand gun roster and red flag laws are two good examples.

Allowing the police to seize weapons based on suspicion is unconstitutional.

CA only recently started allowing concealed carry after the Supreme Court forced them.

[seanw444]

There was just a vote in SCOTUS to attempt to put an end to NY and CA's last-ditch attempts to deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times.

Also, yes, while you may be able to get ARs, you're subject to dumb arbitrary restrictions[1] on what you can put on that AR.

And finally, CA and NY are doing their best to ban body armor. That makes me laugh, because now you can't even own methods of self-defense that aren't meant to injure anyone.

I consider CA and NY foreign nations at this point[2] (among a few others). It seems they do whatever they can to keep the common man down. They're good at one thing though: making it easy to "cheat" your reproductive system, and evade the responsibility of parenting while maintaining your rabid degeneracy as much as you want. I'm not even religious, and I find the rise in abortion disturbing. Although I guess the demographic that tend to get abortions will just be unbreeding themselves out of plurality, by definition.

[1] https://giffords.org/lawcenter/state-laws/assault-weapons-in...

[2] Should not be construed as me implying that red states are great. They're simply the lesser of two evils. I at least feel comfortable in red, although there are many things I disagree with.

[toss1]

>>deprive people of obtaining CCW permits without ridiculous requirements and mind boggling wait times.

Again, in the context of A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, what is the problem with qualifications and a wait time? (yes, if they are actually egregious, it can be an effective ban).

Beyond that, what is so mandatory about concealed carry? It is the right to bear arms -in a well-regulated context- not the right of any mentally-ill person to sneak arms into any place at any time.

[seanw444]

The well-regulated militia part is an example of why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the sole reason for its existence. Also, well-regulated in the context of the time of its passing was "well-equipped and organized." Not our current usage of the word, which means "added layers of bureaucracy and restriction." It makes zero sense to have a militia capable of maintaining a free state that's entirely at the behest of the state it's trying to keep free. For the same reason we laugh at internal investigations: "we launched an internal investigation, and found we did nothing wrong." Otherwise, it's just a second military. Which wasn't the point of it.

It's been ruled this way in the courts, and it's also just kind of obvious if you're reading it with no anti-individual prejudice/bias.

[toss1]

Ummm, that's not the definition of a militia.

The definition of a militia is a body of non-professional (ordinary citizen) soldiers not part of the regular army, who stand ready to be called up in an emergency.

Notice the being called up part - the militia is to be SERVING IN and to be UNDER THE COMMAND of the ordinary military hierarchy.

A militia is NOT as you are implying, some kind of batch of citizens ready to raise an insurrection to fight against the army. That is the exact opposite of "being necessary to the security of a free State".

While I'm not for bureaucracy, even the Army has qualification standards of who can join. While militia standards should be lower, we cannot argue that they should be zero, enshrining some "right" for any mentally-incompetent and/or skilled-incompetent person to buy any armament and carry it in any situation.

If you are a sane, competent, and responsible citizen, no one is even proposing a law infringing your right.

(and FTR, I used to argue a "gun control is using two hands" approach. But accumulation of facts and a bit of thinking has changed my mind.)

[toss1]

Again, what part of "Well Regulated Militia" do you not understand?

None of these would be restrictions under a non-absolutist interpretation ignoring the entire start of the 2A. Granted, this does prevail now after decades of relentless promotion. That does not make it right.

Red flag laws are for people who have actually demonstrated their inability to control their own violence. There are a number of incidents of mass shooters who would have been prevented or slowed by such laws. And again, these people would be drummed out of any well-regulated militia.

Similarly, regulating or registering certain types of weapons does not seem out of bounds in a well-regulated militia, especially in urban environments.

I do have some problem with allowing police to seize weapons on suspicion, depending on the definition of suspicion, and the process to get them back. There are obvious circumstances where it should be not only allowed but required, and others where it is blatant state overreach.

Concealed carry, again in the context of a regulated militia — how is that a problem? You may have to show that you are armed.

Remember, even in the military itself, while weapons are issued and frequently used, they don't have people carrying any kind of weapon everywhere at any time, e.g., [0].

Again, the stated right is NOT any person of any level of mental or skilled competence can have access to any weapon at any time and any place.

It is: “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.”

The very first words are about regulation.

And the current results are proving the idiocy of a policy of unfettered access: 51 years of war 101,813 deaths

3 years of US gun deaths 133,759

US Death count in War

Vietnam War 1955-75 58,281

Korean War 1950-53 36,516

Iraq War 2003-11 4,614

Afghanistan War 2001-21 2,402

US gun deaths 2019-21 133,759

Every other western nation has similar levels of video games, mental illness, or whatever else you want to blame it on. Yet this only happens with any frequency here.

So, again, considering the ACTUAL constitutional intent of a well-regulated militia, what restrictions ACTUALLY INFRINGE ON RIGHTS OF SANE AND RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE.

I still have not seen a single instance of any actual legislator actually introducing a law that would broadly prohibit responsible gun ownership.

Show me one.

[0] https://www.military.com/pcs/can-you-carry-gun-military-base...

[refurb]

See District of Columbia v. Heller - "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

[toss1]

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".

The SCOTUS has now clearly shown that such precedents are not binding, leaving the door open for a decision that does account for the actual text of the constitution's Bill Of Rights.

And again, even with that Heller decision, and with many other posts, not a single respondent has shown a single proposed law by even the most liberal state representative that would infringe on a right of a sane, competent, and responsible person to keep and bear arms.

And if we are going to say that there is no restriction, then why isn't anyone arguing that we should be allowed to have .50cal machine guns, rocket launchers, or nukes? These are simply armaments with different rates and power, so why should the state restrict those? Hell, it's perfectly OK under the law for someone to walk into a theater or shopping mall and mow down dozens of people, why shouldn't they be able to just blow up the mall or nuke the city (provided they have the funds to buy the armaments)? That's half in jest, whole in earnest.

[ovao]

> Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".

This is a fundamental misunderstanding. It’s not that the prefatory clause is ignored — it’s that its presence doesn’t negate the operative clause.

Notably, the second amendment neither prefaces the word “people” with “sane”, “competent” or “responsible”, so it’s not entirely clear to me as to whether you’re arguing on a basis of constitutionality or on something else altogether (is it both and neither simultaneously, maybe?)

[refurb]

Yes, that is a decision based on the idea that the actual text of the constitution can be ignored - the literal first two phrases of the original text: "“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...".

Wait, you’re saying the Supreme Court read it wrong, but you read it correctly?

That’s your argument?

[fundad]

It's unconstitutional to regulate a militia.

[throwawayacc5]

>Seriously?

Yes, seriously.

>I have a relative who lives in CA and bought a pair of AR-15s a few years ago, just because...

No you don't. AR-15s are illegal (felony) in California.

[toss1]

Yes, I do.

He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect. I'm no in CA, but I'm quite sure he still has them (or at least did while I visited after the law was in effect) and that the law did not require confiscating previously-owned firearms, i.e., they were grandfathered in.

[throwawayacc5]

>Yes, I do.

No, you don't.

>He purchased them specifically before the law against purchasing them went into effect.

The California Assault Weapons Control Act was passed in 1989, not "a few years ago". So no, they did not buy them "a few years ago". QED.

[toss1]

Well, I've been there, in his living room in California, about 5 years ago checking them out, which he'd bought a few years prior. He's an executive and very conscientious and law-abiding, not some scofflaw with nothing to lose.

No, I didn't check the laws, serial numbers, registration, etc. But your comment did make me do a quick search which turned up many references to "California-Legal" AR-15s.

The 1989 law was basically a list of products, so it was easily evaded by making similar products and slapping a different name on them. California tried to tighten up the law in 1999 by specifying features, which was then worked around by adjusting the features. The 2016 San Bernadino shooting provoked another tightening, and I presume he bought it before that went into effect.

Here's a key quote: "In 2016, California enacted a law to provide a statutory definition for the term “detachable magazine” to clarify that firearms outfitted with bullet buttons are restricted. People who lawfully obtained these types of guns before Jan. 1 2017 could retain them as long as they registered them with the California Department of Justice in time." [0]

The article found after a quick search indicated that he needn't have been so worried, as the manufacturers also found quick work-arounds to that set of restrictions. It also mentioned that there were something like 189,000 currently registered... so yes, obviously extremely possible to have one.

QED was nothing, except that you know almost nothing about the topic; perhaps consider refraining from posting stuff about which you are obviously ignorant and then doubling down. Sheesh

[0] https://www.sfchronicle.com/projects/2021/california-assault...