Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[God's Country]

Soon to be former law professor at UCLA.

[sota]

Eugene Volokh is an American law professor, the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law. He publishes the blog "The Volokh Conspiracy". He is an academic affiliate of the law firm Mayer Brown. (Wikipedia)
Born: February 29, 1968 (age 49 years), Kiev, Ukraine
Nationality: American

[Coops]

He also points out that if you think the constitution got it wrong or the times have changed and so must the laws, then there is a way to remedy that. Amendments.
We have to urge antis to start talking repeal of the 2nd Amendment. Let them waste their energy on organizing that effort.

[jthrelf]

Great video! Breaks it down nicely.

[brewguy]

So if gun ownership is a right, just like healthcare is a right. That means that guns should be provided for all non felons, right?

[Orlov556]

I was just watching an interview with the late Justice Scalia. He said the SC often goes back to the federalist papers to help discern what the framers were talking about in the Constitution. That got me wondering about the 2nd amendment and what kind of language was included in the federalist papers regarding the militia, when i found this gem in federalist 29:

`But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.'


WOW. You always hear people saying that the 2nd exists to prevent tyranny and as a check to the abuse of standing federal armies, and you like to agree with it, but I never did actually see it written anywhere. But low and behold, on January 9, 1788, Alexander Hamilton laid it out in plain (for the time) English!

[Qtrborecrazy]

So if gun ownership is a right, just like healthcare is a right. That means that guns should be provided for all non felons, right?

I'm in, pass me the ammo while your at it.

[TSimonetti]

Regardless of whether you believe in original intent or a so-called living breathing constitution, in order for you to believe that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right is to believe that the very purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to enshrine the act of the federal government giving permission to itself to bear arms, at the specific exclusion of individual citizens. Why would they need to do that? The Constitution already gives the federal government permission to provide for the common defense.

[Bang]

Well, "militia" was able-bodied from the colonies, which became territories and states and commonwealths. The amendment was promulgated by representatives of the non-federal entities. I think the amendment had non-federal entities in mind.

[SevenMilePete]

We did not need a amendment to the Constitution to arm the military. The 2nd refers to the people.

The 2nd affirms the right, and says it shall not be infringed, but does not establish it.