James, it's a pleasure to follow your journey and I commend you on your process, your research, and your courage in pursuing it. My comment here is more a question about your proposal. You suggest that we should "Amend the Constitution to expressly state that bearing arms is a right that can be freely exercised by any adult in the country who is willing to live up to the responsibility to bear arms." Perhaps unsurprisingly to you, I'm confused by your proposal because to me (a long-time gun owner and 2A proponent) the 2A already covers that. What am I missing? From my perspective, half the states in this country already violate the 2A language, specifically the "shall not be infringed" part. Case in point is our home state of MA, which as you've just experienced, makes it quite difficult to exercise one's 2A right.
Keep up the great work! I look forward to seeing more it.
Thank you! I think what I'm going for is a constitutional provision for limiting 2A exercise. Because as it stands, "shall not be infringed" will forever mean we can't apply sensible restrictions on people. As I read it, since we've reverted to history and tradition it basically means no restrictions are likely to be constitutional (we'll see how case law works out on this) since there isn't a clear tradition or history of restricting access to violent offenders, people with restraining orders against them, people who have been committed to a mental ward involuntarily, etc. I think it would be wise to say some restrictions are in the public interest (and I know a lot of 2A advocates resist that, so I know it's contentious). But that's why I'm leaning toward the language of "responsibility," which in my opinion hews more closely to the ideas of gun ownership at our country's founding. Focusing on history and tradition should include the fact that people were expected by their communities to be responsible owners of guns.
BTW, I'm less interested in whether that makes specific arms legal or illegal, that's about weapons, not people, and I think the discussion should ever be focused on the who not the what. That's my take on it at least at this stage.
James, it's a pleasure to follow your journey and I commend you on your process, your research, and your courage in pursuing it. My comment here is more a question about your proposal. You suggest that we should "Amend the Constitution to expressly state that bearing arms is a right that can be freely exercised by any adult in the country who is willing to live up to the responsibility to bear arms." Perhaps unsurprisingly to you, I'm confused by your proposal because to me (a long-time gun owner and 2A proponent) the 2A already covers that. What am I missing? From my perspective, half the states in this country already violate the 2A language, specifically the "shall not be infringed" part. Case in point is our home state of MA, which as you've just experienced, makes it quite difficult to exercise one's 2A right.
Keep up the great work! I look forward to seeing more it.
Thank you! I think what I'm going for is a constitutional provision for limiting 2A exercise. Because as it stands, "shall not be infringed" will forever mean we can't apply sensible restrictions on people. As I read it, since we've reverted to history and tradition it basically means no restrictions are likely to be constitutional (we'll see how case law works out on this) since there isn't a clear tradition or history of restricting access to violent offenders, people with restraining orders against them, people who have been committed to a mental ward involuntarily, etc. I think it would be wise to say some restrictions are in the public interest (and I know a lot of 2A advocates resist that, so I know it's contentious). But that's why I'm leaning toward the language of "responsibility," which in my opinion hews more closely to the ideas of gun ownership at our country's founding. Focusing on history and tradition should include the fact that people were expected by their communities to be responsible owners of guns.
BTW, I'm less interested in whether that makes specific arms legal or illegal, that's about weapons, not people, and I think the discussion should ever be focused on the who not the what. That's my take on it at least at this stage.