51 thoughts on “An extremely simple concept”

1. There’s nothing in there allowing for the right to bear arms without notice or registration.

   Note that the “right to bear arms” is tied to a “well regulated” militia. How can you say there are to be no controls on gun rights when the word regulated appears in the very sentence? Also, how is public disclosure via registration infringement on your right to bear arms? No one is saying you can’t bear arms in your local militia. They’re saying that they want to know which guns you bear. That somehow infringes on your right to bear them?

   By the way, Johnson’s Dictionary which was the dictionary of the time (we’re pre-oxford days here folks!) says regulate means:

   
   1. To adjust by rule or method.
   
   2. To direct.
   

   So we’re not talking about a word whose definition has changed in the past 200+ years.

2. If we want our constitution to allow for the ownership of guns without any notification, information or record keeping, we are welcome to attempt to amend it

   Our Constitution is not constructed that way.  One can certainly argue there might be reasonable limits to all rights when they come in conflict with others (e.g., yelling theater at a crowded fire), but the default position is expansive–when it comes to individual liberty viz limited, enumerated government powers–with rights that have a history of violation especially reinforced.

   Don’t forget Amendments IX and X.  Concept of penumbra, which we use to support reproductive rights even though there is no explicit mention of such things in the Constitution.

   And I see kestrel’s already beaten me to the VT Constitution…

3. …as I believe he, like many in both the “pro” and “anti” gun camp, fetishize guns more than a little bit, which has the effect of complicating discussion, I do agree with him in this (as I often do on these issues). There is stuff in this bill that goes beyond the problem it claims to address, in a way that is a potential infraction on personal privacy, and could have other consequences, or could set the stage for further action.

   There are times when we, as communities, make the decision to inhibit or give up some some measure of our historic, or understood individual rights. Maybe we decide we need to allow for hunting licenses to manage game herds… or, yeah, we decide we can’t let people go in and yell “fire” in a crowded theater as a joke. We can – and do – make those decisions as societies, and that’s OK, so long as its done right.

   But it has to be done right; meaning, it has to be done as a specific remedy to a specific societal problem, and it must be fully vetted in a public forum – AND be deemed not to cross certain absolute lines that constitute the definition of who we are as a community. This is the approach we should take, whether or not we personally approve of the “right” in question. Person “A” may not care for the “right to bear arms.” Person “B” may not care for the “right to privacy.” A fair, honorable, and open process protects both.

   Those parts of this bill that go beyond its stated problem/solution construction do not meet this criteria, plainly.

4. Note that the “right to bear arms” is tied to a “well regulated” militia. How can you say there are to be no controls on gun rights when the word regulated appears in the very sentence? Also, how is public disclosure via registration infringement on your right to bear arms? No one is saying you can’t bear arms in your local militia. They’re saying that they want to know which guns you bear. That somehow infringes on your right to bear them?

   By the way, Johnson’s Dictionary which was the dictionary of the time (we’re pre-oxford days here folks!) says regulate means:

      1. To adjust by rule or method.
   
      2. To direct.

   So we’re not talking about a word whose definition has changed in the past 200+ years.

   Disclaimer: I live to the East of Vermont.

   Back to the history lesson:
   
   All well and good if you ignore the historical context of both keeping and bearing arms, and the hiring of General Von Steuben to write “Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States”.

   http://nationalheritagemuseum….

   “While early editions of the Regulations were quickly snapped up, an even larger market was created in 1792 when Congress passed the Militia Act.  As state militias began to appear, Steuben’s manual filled the need for soldiers requiring instructions on everything from drilling to fighting in battle to setting up camp. The original manual usually was printed together with a more specific state manual.”

   So “well regulated” IS directed by rule (and) method in this case, and has little to do with the prohibition of any class of firearm.  

   The draft of the Fourth Article (the Second’s original order in the Bill of Rights) failed to show the “Unless Religiously Scrupulous” exemption for Militia Service, often in the original submissions.  No slight to The Society of Friends, the omission was to prevent a religious group from disenfranchising others from the Right to Arms.

   The regulation of firearms was essentially to say to the States: Standardize.  One caliber of militia weapon, if you please.  Most did not. Please.  So until it was shown to us again (War of 1812) you could show up with a shotgun, .70 cal musket, .36 cal rifle, .50, .52, .54, .63, .68 or a sword for Militia duty.

   After the Brits handed us our asses in 1812-14 we adopted the .58 caliber musket as the standard arm though the Civil War.

   Skip ahead, skip ahead.

   The basis of US v Miller, the stare decisis of which helped fashion six decades of gun rulings, was based on Miller possessing and transporting a firearm (short barrel shotgun) argued as “not suitable” for the purpose of Militia duty.  Notwithstanding the use of such shotguns as “trench sweepers” only 20 years prior, the Attorney General sought to validate the National Firearms Act with a constructed case built around a petty criminal, have a favorable ruling, and call it “settled law”.

   That settled law didn’t just define guns which guns were usable for militia duty, but was later (politically) interpreted that ONLY “Militia” could possess those guns under the Constitution.

   The reasoning of which I could only liken to the freedom of religion being deemed freedom FROM religion.  Another phenomenon of selective reading/reasoning.

   Interestingly, the then Attorney Generals position argued
   
   the polar opposite of the Clinton Assault Weapon Ban, where the Administration claimed no civilian is entitled to a military look-alike weapon.

   While Miller held that as a citizen, male, of a certain age; his privately kept firearm was required to be suitable for Militia Service; later Courts would deem the citizen “Unorganized Militia” obsolete due to the adoption of the National Defense Act of 1916.  
   
   Conveniently ignoring the fact that Miller was adjudicated some 20 years after the passage of the National Defense Act, and at no time was Miller told “ah nevermind, you’re not IN the National Guard”.

5. there is every reason to track guns and have some details about who owns them

   Constitutional issues aside, I don’t see how a statewide gun registry makes anyone safer.  How would it prevent deaths?  Or protect anyone?  
   

6. …I’m sure it will be a campaign issue in 2012 (PALIN–maybe she should be regulated).

   When I was a 12-14 year old in N.J., the registration was automatic, and they took both my name and my parents.  In Ohio, I bought a rifle and handgun from a friend and didn’t even look into Ohio’s registration laws, if any.

   In Vermont ALL the guns I bought, I voluntarily registered with the police, because that protected me, in case they were stolen.  And sure as shit, the first two rifles I owned and kept at my girlfriend’s place in the country outside of Hardwick were stolen.  That theft happened in ’81, five years after I bought the rifles.  Occasionally, a Hardwick cop would call to say that they had seized some stolen rifles, but mine were not among them, and did I have any new ideas about who might have stolen my weapons.  Well, maybe the Hardwick cops were being investigative over the years–the sale and theft of guns was an almost everyday culture in the Northeast Kingdom.  It never bothered me, nor felt intrusive that the cops were doing the exact job I wanted done by registering my guns in the first place.  They never found the rifles–a 30-30 Sears mock-up of the Winchester model 94, and a .22 GODDAMN Stevens
   
   single shot.  (Hope the crook knows about Sotherby’s)

   So, shit happens with guns.  I DON’T BELIEVE IN THE GOVERNMENT’S RIGHT to make new laws on registration and personal information.  An honest citizen should find that intrusive, and also prohibitive.  And the bad guys will always be able to get guns, while the authorities have both hands tied-up in monitoring the honest citizen.  The dupe of a sales slip from a store with name, serial # of weapon, and address of buyer is ALL the information the police need.  When I bought a handgun at the Newport Trading Store in Jan., ’93 (cause I was worried about what Clinton would do on new gun laws), I had to argue with the Newport cop (I walked my bagged new toy over to the Newport PD building) about taking down the information I was volunteering.  He said:  “Ah, it’ll just wind up in a box in the cellar here.”  “Well, good enough,” I said. “There’ll be a record somewhere.”  There are records everywhere, and all kinds of laws about guns that need to be enforced, before we make new laws in which the honest citizen’s rights are invaded.  (You shouldn’t be allowed to hunt with automatic weapons, etc..)  Yeah (if you’re still reading this), I agree with kestrel–the registration part of the new bill should be deleted.

   Decades ago, in the country, I also believed that an unloaded handgun was a worthless tool.  First rabies scare back in the eighties.  Well, I’ve come to believe now–even if I still lived in the country–that a loaded gun in the house is asking for all kinds of trouble, not just the child issue.  I don’t like the trigger lock clauses, but I can live with that.  A person can always unlock and relock his gun; you have to keep them cleaned, for Godsake–that’s responsible gun safety too.

   A gun can be a tool, but it is also a deadly weapon.  There needs to be much more education (for children also) because new laws don’t teach people shit.  I will gladly lay down my gun–when police lay down their tasers (all of them).

7. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)
   

   Constitutionally protected as it may be in the U.S., the evidence suggests we have a seriously flawed relationship with guns here.

8. Doesn’t look like I can link to my search, but at CDC’s WONDER database, I found all of 11 firearm deaths (discounting intentionally self-inflicted) between 1998 and 2007 in Vermont involving kids aged 10-19 (there were zero under 10).  It’s less than 1 per 100k population, but given these small numbers that’s an unreliable estimate.

   Not compelling to me to pass legislation that has no real demonstrable benefit to Vermont’s children, even if there were no constitutional right also at stake.

9. I have said we need gun registration by population density.

   Handguns have one purpose: to murder humans.  To own a handgun is to be ready to kill your neighbor.

   I believe the nation, and this state, needs to adopt similar policies to automobiles.  All guns of every type need to be registered with the state, every year that registration needs to be renewed.  

   Every gun owner must have liability insurance policies of $1M minimum in order to even own a gun to begin with.  Just like a car, if you let your insurance or registration lapse, it can’t leave your property.  If you are found off your property with an unlicensed and uninsured firearm it is confiscated and you are fined.  You can have it back when you prove you are a responsible adult.

   Every potential gun owner must take a test before a license to own a firearm is issued.

   I would add that every five years there should be mandatory safety training requirements in order to renew the licenses and insurance.

   All firearms must be kept unloaded and locked. If someone steals your guns because they were not secured in your home, you are responsible for what that person does with it, and your insurance will not cover your responsibility for it. If your teenager takes your gun to school and kills themselves there, then every parent and the school should sue you – it was your fault this happened and you must be held accountable for it.

   There is NO good reason to own firearms: ‘because I can’ isn’t a reason.  There is every good reason to regulate and insure them.

Comments are closed.