America Has A Problem With Too Many Gun Laws
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 4 months ago
Dean Weingarten. Dean cites Bruen.
Respondents next direct the Court to the history of the Colonies and early Republic, but they identify only three restrictions on public carry from that time. While the Court doubts that just three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry regulation, even looking at these laws on their own terms, the Court is not convinced that they regulated public carry akin to the New York law at issue. The statutes essentially prohibited bearing arms in a way that spread “fear” or “terror” among the people, including by carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 554 U. S., at 627. Whatever the likelihood that handguns were considered “dangerous and unusual” during the colonial period, they are today “the quintessential self-defense weapon.” Id., at 629. Thus, these colonial laws provide no justification for laws restricting the public carry of weapons that are unquestionably in common use today. Pp. 37–42.
He goes on in citing Bruen to note that it didn’t take tyrants long to begin to press their tyranny.
In the early to mid-19th century, some States began enacting laws that proscribed the concealed carry of pistols and other small weapons.
This is yet another great commentary by Dean. He concludes with this.
Thousands of gun laws across the United States have destroyed hundreds of thousands of lives and done untold economic damage. They were passed with lies and false promises. It is time to repeal most of them.
Yes, laws against barrel length, gun features, ownership stipulations, capacity, rate of fire, and on and on the circus goes. I wouldn’t have stopped with the need for most of them being repealed. I would have said all of them.
The exception would be manufacturer liability for bad products and poor engineering. If a manufacturer fabricates and markets a firearm that harms the user because of poor craftsmanship or failure to follow SAAMI specifications, I believe they should be held accountable, both legally and financially. I think this is in line with what I’ll call Christian libertarianism.
Outside of this single law, I’m at a loss to find another one with which I agree or believe should be kept.
H/T: Fred.
On August 22, 2022 at 7:45 am, Don W Curton said:
You can take the word “gun” out of the headline and it’d still be true. We have too many laws. Way too many laws. And this is not a new problem. God gave the Jews 10 commandments and they perverted it into over 600 OT laws. We can’t even count the number of laws here in this country. And the fact that most of them are selectively enforced means we no longer have rule of law, we have a lottery in reverse where you can be randomly selected and fined, ticketed, prosecuted for any number of irrelevant things. Even shot if you don’t like the system.
On August 22, 2022 at 8:22 am, Bill Buppert said:
If the BoR were worth the parchment it’s printed on, the Federal government would be unable to pass a single gun law.
On August 22, 2022 at 8:26 am, Joe Blow said:
Shall
Not
Be
Infringed
Every single one of those reasonable gun laws are an infringement. Even the good ones. Its like free speech, you have to protect the hate speech lest your language be defined as such, as is happening.
Zero negotiation, zero ground, zero forks given. The language employed was clear for a reason. They could have used any combination of words to describe the God given natural right. Shall not be infringed (*unless something really terrible goes down…) nope, pretty clear language.
In fact it is the very arguments being proffered, as to demonstrate the purpose of the amendment in the first place (though that appears lost to both sides.)
Pray for us all. That time has come, we are here now, in the middle of it.
On August 22, 2022 at 9:09 am, Don't mind me said:
There is no single gun law on the books that can be proven beneficial.
All laws should have an expiration date, unless there’s a proven benefit to it. This can easily be done with cost/benefit studies.
On August 23, 2022 at 8:29 am, Chris said:
SAAMI did not exist at the time of the ratification of the bill of rights. So toss that requirement too. Laws against fraud did exist then, so banning arms that are fraudulently marked or marketed is legitimate.
On August 23, 2022 at 9:17 am, Herschel Smith said:
@Chris,
Deuteronomy 22:8. I don’t care if SAAMI was around at the time of the BoR. You missed the point.
If a man makes a faulty product, or a man invites others to his home and fails to protect them while they are there, there is bloodguilt. See Deut 22:8.
So says the Almighty. Argue with Him about it, not me. This is the difference between libertarianism and Christian libertarianism.
The so-called “general equity” of OT case law is still binding. See Rushdoony, “Institutes of Biblical Law.”
On August 23, 2022 at 9:28 am, Chris said:
@Hershel, Deut 22:8 “When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.” This calls for a principal of building safely; it does not call for the establishment of a human organziation to define what that is. SAAMI is a human organization that can become corrupted. If Soros buys the members of SAAMI and they claim no gun is safe, would you still permit laws that require SAAMI approval? But if a gun is sold as a gun, which by definition permits the discharge of a cartridge with safety to the user and bystanders, the question becomes is that a true statement or is it fraud?
On August 23, 2022 at 9:43 am, Herschel Smith said:
You’re still missing the overall point. And badly so.
In lieu of an organization like this, God dictated Himself the building of a fence. It’s a principle. A principle to be followed.
Today there is no need to build a fence on house roofs, mainly, because we don’t entertain guests on house roofs. It’s … a … principle. A principle to be followed. God is telling us how to live with one another.
Be responsible for the safety of others in what we do, how we live, and what we give them to use, including when we invite them over to our homes.
This is what’s called the “general equity” of the case law. A principle is taken and applied to life writ large.
If Soros buys SAAMI and makes it to where no one can meet the standards, then the standards have become moot. SAAMI was just an example of good engineering (and they do good engineering).
If they no longer do good engineering, then a man is responsible for doing his own engineering (and maybe should do so anyway).
On August 23, 2022 at 10:36 am, PGF said:
That section of scripture sets forth good practices in living one with another and the beasts we are blessed to have dominion over. Verse 8 speaks of the safety and well being of those INVITED onto your property. Specifically a railing or wall for safety from falling is put forth as an example to illustrate the principal.
If you build a gun and sell it, it should function safely. SAAMI offers standards so that both parties may have a point of reference as to what a safe “wall” is.
This is not to disagree but I thought to offer this point of clarification.
On August 23, 2022 at 10:40 am, Bradley A Graham said:
The Second amendment means nothing unless you are willing to personally enforce it.
There is no try.