The Second Amendment

[safeinOhio]

"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."


Does that leave open laws that ban the firing of guns? Sure you have the right to keep and bear arms, does that give you the right to shoot them if you are not in the act of securing a free State?

[Glassunion]

1. No you cannot ban the firing. It's the well regulated part.

Not to mention the impractical implications of people owning firearms that they can never practice with.

However there are laws on the books that make it illegal to fire a weapon in certain circumstances.

[Riftaxe]

2. Does the first Amendmant allow government to limit speech

over 1 decibel? Surely laws that limit voice to inaudible whispers would lead to a much more peaceful nation.

[safeinOhio]

4. apples and oranges

speech purpose is to communicate. According to the 2nd, arms are to secure a Free State.

[ManiacJoe]

12. Wrong interpretation.

The introductory clause at the front basically says "Whereas this is one reason among many not stated here". Flowery introductory clauses are not limitations on the main clause. Removing the intro clause would have no affect on the main clause.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

3. That begs the question... what defines a "secured free state"?

I would imagine that a free state allows it's citizens to both (justifiably) defend their lives life and to engage in recreational activities so long as that activity does not directly infringe on the rights of others.

Edit: Ignoring, of course, the fact that back in the day "well regulated" meant well-functioning.
I seriously doubt the intent of the 2A was guaranteeing the possession of a well-functioning firearm while never being able to fire them. That's simply illogical.

[safeinOhio]

8. I would think secure a free State

would mean a defensive action. We already regulate all kinds of recreational activities. No drag racing on public roads. While that may be dangerous, just like discharging a gun, it does not necessarily infringe on some one else's rights. An empty road late at night.

Laws against discharge within city limits sounds like a law that may be expanded to county, state and on.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. In a free society (free state?) the onus of necessity should be on the side proposing restrictions

Anyone proposing restrictions and bans in a free society should be required to demonstrate why a restriction of rights is both justified and effective. Why would a ban on firearm discharges on rural private property be justified, so long as the shooting is done safely? How do the benefits of statewide restrictions outwieght the potential rights lost by people?

With sufficient land (or permission from nearby landowners) such actions can be carried out with minimal safety concerns. Keep in mind, most recreational shooting is NOT done on public property. Shooting and sporting ranges open to the public are generally privately or collectively owned. Generally, there ARE statewide laws prohibiting the recreational discharge of firearms along or across roads and in other public places.

The problem with using public roads for "drag racing" is that there is nothing gaurunteeing the safety of other lawful travellers. Laws exist to ensure public roads are safe for public transit... there is no prohibition of public transit on "empty roads late at night" so the traffic laws are still in effect. If you can race within the bounds of traffic regulations (speed limit, signalling, lane changes, traffic lights,...) you are certainly welcome to race. It wouldn't be too fun though. Also, just like with a gun, if you have sufficient land you are welcome to race on your own land - no license, insurance, or registration needed.

[safeinOhio]

18. My last house out in the country

was hit several times by gun fire during hunting season. It was never hit by a racing car.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

21. Then your rights were violated by virtue of your safety being at jeopardy.

The second amendment does not protect somebody's right to act in an unsafe manner and jeopardize the safety of others.
You should have filed a complaint with DOW and local law enforcement.
Either the land owner or hunters should have been culpable - at the very least letting the court decide.

This is case where individual examination of events would better serve society than a blanket restriction across the state.
Laws are already in place that prohibit hunters from putting others at unnecessary risk.

[slackmaster]

5. As is true for all other civil rights, reasonable limits can be put on its exercise

The non-emergency firing of guns can be prohibited in residential areas.

[PavePusher]

14. ...Outside of a well-prepared, safe shooting range. n/t

[X_Digger]

6. The second amendment protects a right, with one reason..

That doesn't mean the right is limited only to the express purpose.

"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." * p1

However, some restrictions are permissible.

"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." * p2

So in answer to your first question, the state could ban the discharge of a gun, except in circumstances related to things like self-defense.

In answer to your second question, see the first quote above. The right is not limited to 'securing a free state'.


* http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

[safeinOhio]

11. What limits the expansion of

discharging within a city to township, county or state. Once a limit is established what is to stop it from expanding? As to where and when one may fire a weapon, the Constitution clearly states to secure a free State. Under the 10th, the state would have that responsibility as that part is not delegated to the Fed.
I don't think the answer is clear at all. Have there been any case law on laws that restrict the firing of a gun?

[X_Digger]

13. Yes, a few..

Let me do a search and I'll get back to you.

But in all the cases that vaguely tickle brain cells, they all carve out an exception, or at least a 'defense to prosecution' for use of deadly force for self-defense (or to stop a felony or arson in some states.)

eta: On second read, though.. you keep getting hung up on the idea that the right protected by the second amendment is limited only to the purpose for which it was enumerated. Funnily enough, the founders worried about this very thing. They were afraid that at some future point, someone would try to say that these rights are the only ones we have. (Hence the 9th amendment.) You're doing the same thing, but by trying to limit the scope of the right based on the opening clause, rather than others who claim "It's not in the constitution, therefore you can't do it!"

[safeinOhio]

20. I'm not saying because it is not in the Constitution

so you can't do it. I am saying because it is not prohibited in the constitution, it can be passed as a law in a state or county.

[X_Digger]

24. Then why muddy the water with "the Constitution clearly states to secure a free State"?

As though you were trying to establish the limits of the right based on the text of the opening clause of the second amendment.

Or is it that your proposition has changed from the OP?

[madinmaryland]

7. And what is "a well regulated militia"? and who regulates them?

[slackmaster]

9. According to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution that is the responsibility of Congress

Other than the Civilian Marksmanship Program, they've pretty much shirked that one.

http://www.odcmp.com

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

10. We need more programs like CMP...

Especially ones that sell us more surplus modern rifles like the M16 and M14.

Garands are nice, but I'd rather shoot 5.56mm and 7.62mm than the .30-06
Sure, .30-06 is nearly identical to the .308/7.62 but it is indeed antiquated.

And no picatinny rails on the M14... this "socom" crap has got to stop. Talk about a hideous rifle.
Everytime I see an all black M14 with rails I feel like clubbing baby seals.

[safeinOhio]

15. I have Article One Section Eight in front of me

and I don't see it. The Fed could be responsible for marksmanship, putting it under their control and supervision. I can see a ruling to cover hunting and self defense. However, in an area not open to hunting, the firing of a gun could be banned. If you have no constitutional rights to fire a gun in the city, what gives one the right to fire one in the county?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

17. If bullets are not leaving my rural property, why do my actions need regulated?

It's already illegal to fire weapons recreationally on public land (or private land without consent).

If I am accountable for my projectiles why should my actions on my property which affectnobody else be a concern for legislators?
What is the problem? What would your hypothetical legislation solve that previous laws did not already cover?

[jeepnstein]

19. It's simple, really.

What you are seeking to do is reduce the ownership of arms to nothing more than a symbolic thing. "Sure, you can own one but you are forbidden to ever fire it." There would be no way to acquire the necessary proficiency with arms under such a circumstance and so I would expect such a back door attempt at a ban to fail. Of course, there would have to be an exception to such a ban for government to train their employees, right?

What about tightly controlled indoor ranges in a city? Are your concerns about safety or a way to achieve a different goal?

[safeinOhio]

22. I'm not concerned about safety, I'm

concerned about what a government entity may pass as a law.

I think everyone has put some thought into this question. I still see some questions not answered by the court.

[jeepnstein]

25. I see where you're going with this.

No doubt someone out there is planning to try it as a way to circumvent the inevitable incorporation of the 2nd Amendment by rendering it unusable. It's an interesting notion but I just don't see it passing constitutional muster and could backfire much in the way the D.C. laws and Chicago laws have on the folks who put them forward as public policy.

[slackmaster]

26. You do have a constitutional right to fire a gun in a city

In self-defense or the defense of others.

[jeepnstein]

23. "Regulated"

Regulate - "3. To adjust, or maintain, with respect to a desired rate, degree, or condition; as, to regulate the temperature of a room, the pressure of steam, the speed of a machine, etc." - Websters Dictionary

Well regulated means a militia, or armed populace if you will, having the proper type of arms and a reasonable proficiency with them. Back in 1775 that would have meant a functioning rifle suitable for military service and a load out of ammo and supplies to keep you going until the supply chain was established. Today that still means a functioning rifle suitable for military service, a load out of ammo, and some supplies.