[485] in libertarians
ACLU and Guns
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Vernon Imrich)
Thu Dec 8 20:09:06 1994
To: libertarians@MIT.EDU
Date: Thu, 08 Dec 1994 20:07:32 EST
From: Vernon Imrich <vimrich@MIT.EDU>
>> Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds
>> of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on
>> handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
>
>Notice that the argument is not that "the Constitution clearly says
><X>", but "if the Constitution says <Y>, we wouldn't be able to ban
>handguns, Uzis, or semi-auto rfiles, so we must assume that it says
><X>".
"If the first amendment protects ALL speech, then what about kiddie porn?"
(classic cry of speech detractors).
>> If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional
>> protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of
>> the people to resist government tyranny
>
>Which it clearly does, if one reads either the ammendment itself, or
>any of the writings of those who drafted the document or signed it.
Clearly this was the case of 1776, and though they lost, you could
argue also the case of 1860 (at least, their "right to rise up," not
whether their particular greivance had merit).
>> then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD
>> missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles
>> and M-16s, are arms.
>
>One could indeed argue this. In Switzerland it has been argued and
>won. Swiss milita units have RPGs, machine guns, mortars, etc.
Actually there is a principled way to set such limits, set in the
Miller case (1939?). "[any weapon] that can be considered part of
the normal militia use" (from memory so I may have miffed that a bit).
In any case, no single soldier has control over a tank, plane, nuke,
or a machine gun nest. Thus, the "personal right" can be limited
on that same basis as what is avialable for "personal use" (any group
owning a tank or nuke could easily be considered an organization
claiming sovereignty apart from the US Government and thus not
covered by its protections). Thus, the law would stop at fully
auto weapons, rpgs and hand grenades on this principle. Any arm
reasonably requiring more than one person to use could be restricted,
IN PRINCIPLE, as a start.
Furthermore, the limitation/registration of some arms might be
allowed on the basis of endangerment. That is, storing grenades
or rpgs is different than mere guns and ammo. The mere fact that
you have them presents a reasonable danger to neighboring property
in that they are explosive devises. Proper certification and
handling would be reasonable, as well as proof of storage methods.
The same could be said of people who want to own radioactive
materials of any kind. Anything that by its very nature presents
a threat (as if gun to a head) to people nearby. Indeed, this
argument could be used against nuke and other bomb ownership
under ANY circumstances. A bomb is a permanently loaded weapon
aimed at everyone within its blast radius. Your right to own
weapons is not a right to point them at innocent bystanders.
So we see that there are numerous principled arguments, based on
the civil liberties of all the other people.
(BTW as far as I know, the objections to DISarmed tanks and
planes is for entirely different reasoning also having to do
with violations of others rights, namely airspace and road damage.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Vernon Imrich | market failure, n. The inabilty of the |
| MIT OE, Rm 5-329b | market to recover from a blow by |
| Cambridge, MA 02139 | intervention. (The Exchange) |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
