Accidental shootings in both North Carolina, Ohio and Indiana Gun Shows

[gunner69]

You know, I've been thinking about this. While I do think I'm fairly well informed about this topic (namely Constitutional issues), I'm by no means an expert. Yes, I've nearly completed a history degree. Yes, I specialize in US history. But realistically, I don't yet specialize in constitutional issues. I primarily focus on the 1830s through Reconstruction.

So I decided to ask an expert. I sent an e-mail to an acquaintance, Dr. Paul Finkelman. Dr. Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Government Law Center. He's largely considered one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country. I asked him the following:

Do you think the 2nd Amendment was intended to grant individuals the right to carry concealed firearms? Moreover, do you think the government mandating safety training would be an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?

His reply: "I have many friends who are hunters, and I love the venison they cook for me. I am an advocate of reasonable and responsible firearms use and regulation. But as a matter of Constitutional law, it seems to me the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to own private weapons.

The second and third words of the amendment are "well regulated." I think mandatory training, licensing, insurance, registration, and gun cabinets are all constitutional, as are background checks and bans for various kinds of individuals (not only felons). I also think a "ban" on long guns would be stupid and politically impossible and a disaster for the environment. Given the deer population we need more hunters or more wolves! I think there is probably a 9th Amendment to hunt and fish -- all within regulations and rules and seasons."

While his comments are slightly contradictory (if the amendment has nothing to with private ownership, why would "well regulated" apply to such issues) Dr. Finkelman included a copy of his 2006 paper, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective" which largely clarifies his views. The paper is a solid 30 pages long, so I can't copy it here, but please, read it. The full text is available here. Of particular note is section VIII, regarding the debate surrounding the bill of rights.

Back when the 2nd amendment was written "well regulated" had a completely different meaning than your well educated friend suggest. Well regulated meant in proper working order or functioning well. It had nothing to do with limitations.

 

[Walt_Jabsco]

Back when the 2nd amendment was written "well regulated" had a completely different meaning than your well educated friend suggest. Well regulated meant in proper working order or functioning well. It had nothing to do with limitations.

I suggest reading the paper.

 

[Captain Morgan]

Haven't read all the replies, but let me ask this...who decides how difficult the safety class is to pass? Who decides the cost? This is where you're going to run into problems. =f the gov wants to make it impossible to pass, they can do so, thus restricting citizens from "legally" purchasing guns.

 

[Two-Tornadoes]

I think a safety course should be offered when you purchase a gun, but it should not be mandatory and in should not be controlled or regulated in any way by the government.

 

[DragonGunner]

You know, I've been thinking about this. While I do think I'm fairly well informed about this topic (namely Constitutional issues), I'm by no means an expert. Yes, I've nearly completed a history degree. Yes, I specialize in US history. But realistically, I don't yet specialize in constitutional issues. I primarily focus on the 1830s through Reconstruction.

So I decided to ask an expert. I sent an e-mail to an acquaintance, Dr. Paul Finkelman. Dr. Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Government Law Center. He's largely considered one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the country. I asked him the following:

Do you think the 2nd Amendment was intended to grant individuals the right to carry concealed firearms? Moreover, do you think the government mandating safety training would be an infringement of 2nd Amendment rights?

His reply: "I have many friends who are hunters, and I love the venison they cook for me. I am an advocate of reasonable and responsible firearms use and regulation. But as a matter of Constitutional law, it seems to me the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to own private weapons.

The second and third words of the amendment are "well regulated." I think mandatory training, licensing, insurance, registration, and gun cabinets are all constitutional, as are background checks and bans for various kinds of individuals (not only felons). I also think a "ban" on long guns would be stupid and politically impossible and a disaster for the environment. Given the deer population we need more hunters or more wolves! I think there is probably a 9th Amendment to hunt and fish -- all within regulations and rules and seasons."

While his comments are slightly contradictory (if the amendment has nothing to with private ownership, why would "well regulated" apply to such issues) Dr. Finkelman included a copy of his 2006 paper, "A Well Regulated Militia: The Second Amendment in Historical Perspective" which largely clarifies his views. The paper is a solid 30 pages long, so I can't copy it here, but please, read it. The full text is available here. Of particular note is section VIII, regarding the debate surrounding the bill of rights.

Your friend is ignorant...you and him need to use google and see what the SCOTUS has said time after time about the 2nd Ammendment....and its meaning.

 

[gunner69]

I suggest reading the paper.

Skimmed through it. The paper continued to use "well regulate" in the wrong manner.

 

[Walt_Jabsco]

Your friend is ignorant...you and him need to use google and see what the SCOTUS has said time after time about the 2nd Ammendment....and its meaning.

I'd refer you to the extensively cited and sourced footnotes in the Finkelman paper I provided.

Edit: Apologies, the footnotes aren't included in that particular download. My bad.

 

[MightySanta]

Your friend is ignorant...you and him need to use google and see what the SCOTUS has said time after time about the 2nd Ammendment....and its meaning.

It annoys me how ignorant not only the public is, but so many gun owners are these days regarding our rights.

 

[Hookeye]

Funny, my dad met a state univ prof a few years back (also a Constitutional law expert) who said it was about private ownership.

Guess it depends on the academic asked.

Academia............notoriously conservative and always telling of the truth

 

[Tamara]

"But as a matter of Constitutional law, it seems to me the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with the right to own private weapons."

That opinion is flatly contradicted by the SCOTUS in the recent Heller and McDonald decisions.

Even noted pinko Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz, who is opposed to the private ownership of firearms, once wrote "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."

 

[SERparacord]

My interpretation of the 2nd is all that counts. I think it is there to protect me from the Government.

 

[Osobuco]

Back when the 2nd amendment was written "well regulated" had a completely different meaning than your well educated friend suggest. Well regulated meant in proper working order or functioning well. It had nothing to do with limitations.

Correct - the term regulated at the time and in the usage within the BofR simply means trained. Not regulated by rules or conditions.

 

[Hookeye]

So..................how many liberal agreement posts must Walt make before he's accepted into the university's law program?

 

[John Galt]

I weep for our children ....

 

[SERparacord]

So..................how many liberal agreement posts must Walt make before he's accepted into the university's law program?

He must be going to Harvard. They can get a law degree now without ever reading the Constitution.

 

[Hookeye]

As long as he has a foreign student ID

 

[Punkinhead]

Dr. Paul Finkelman. Dr. Finkelman is the President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law and Public Policy at Albany Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Government Law Center.

Do they really think the world takes them more seriously when the give each other silly titles like this? Gotta love academia.

 

[MikeDVB]

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[BowhuntnHoosier]

Its simply panic buying by uneducated persons. The government is to blame.

 

[MikeDVB]

I unloaded my firearm, checked it clear, removed the firing pin and spring, and then tried to figure out how it would be possible to do anything with the weapon that involved reloading it while having a hand in a position that could get hit by a bullet leaving the muzzle while reloading...

I can't seem to figure it out... I would need 3 hands - was his friend helping him reload while they were walking, or is there more to this story?