A nuclear warhead wouldn’t be classified as a bearable arm (as in an arm that can be “borne” by a person), and therefore such an item would not be covered under the 2A. I also would assume that the mere presence of a nuclear warhead without the proper containment facilities constitutes an existential threat to those in the surrounding area; threats on other people’s lives are not protected by the 2A. This is why in the early colonial days, kegs of black powder were required to be stored in designated warehouses, because the powder’s chemical properties meant that large concentrations of it stored haphazardly in ordinary residences inherently comprised a legitimate threat to neighbors.
Unless we were to claim that handguns are not bearable arms and also say that the mere presence of any gun outside of a locked safe constitutes an existential threat, then the “we’d have to allow nuclear warheads too” argument doesn’t hold up.
As to the “I’m just arguing reason/commonsense/etc.”: that’s what every gun control advocate says, but that is why we have a constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms, so that such appeals to pragmatism are rendered irrelevant. The British argued that disarming the colonists was just the reasonable thing to do. Proponents of Jim Crow argued that disarming minorities was just the reasonable thing to do. If the government were to somehow find a way to permanently disarm all blacks in America, I am sure the number of murders by gun would decrease, but does the God-given individual right of a black person to own and carry a firearm not override that “reasonable” assessment of the statistics?
This is not supposed to be a centrally controlled society run on the basis of cost-benefit analysis, it is supposed to be a constitutional republic that protects the rights of the individual.
Oh sure, but I’m talking about what is, not what should be.
The way things are, currently, a working employee is considered an agent of the employer. If a UPS driver gets drunk and hits you with a big brown truck, your lawyer is going to sue UPS. UPS, therefore, is going to make all their drivers go through standardized training and set policies in place to reduce the chances that one of them will get drunk on the job.
Someone will surely say “driving is a privilege but carrying a firearm is a right.” OK, fine, but the issue of agency and liability is the same.
Someone will surely say “driving is a privilege but carrying a firearm is a right.” OK, fine, but the issue of agency and liability is the same.
Agreed. But the key here is that, when it’s a right being dealt with (rather than a privilege), and when it’s a government institution setting the policy, the only valid solution to safety/liability concerns is to change the situation in some other way, rather than by violating the right.
We can use the legislative process to change things like tort laws, compulsory attendance at government schools, etc. without violating the Constitution. We cannot use the government to strip (or impose burdens on) the right of its employees to keep and bear arms.
Possibly. But this is a much larger issue than teachers. As I mentioned earlier, I can’t walk into the county building with a firearm; only on-duty security personnel can be armed in that building. Heck, service members can’t carry on most military posts, unless they’re performing specific duties / training that requires them to carry.
The right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Good.
We commonly encounter incorrect arguments that this in some way refers to government employees/armed forces personnel, like the national guard or the army or cops. And we correctly say, no, that isn’t what is meant by The People, that’s the government (government employees).
Perhaps in some parallel fashion, government employees such as public school teachers, are also not The People while they are at work, working, for the government.
To put it shortly: Are government employees working on government property on the clock for the government, The People?
The 2A says the right to keep and bear arms. Has it been decided in case law that people can only keep bearable arms? What is bearable? Something you can carry in your arms, on your back, In your vehicle? Are you proposing new potential infringements based on size? If so then let’s say it is one of the suitcase nuclear devices that Russia developed. I suspect they are relatively safe to carry or else they would be easy to detect. And their likely as bearable as a heavy sniper rifle. Should everyone be able to keep one of those?
Just as the anti self defense folks will never get their Utopian dream of a disarmed world the die hard pro 2A folks are never gonna have their dream of an Abrams tank and an F-15 parked in every drive or the right to carry in every single place they want. People can’t set up shooting ranges in their postage stamp size yards in an urban subdivision. There will always be competing liberties that need to be assessed and balanced.
The 2A should clearly put the benefit of the doubt on the side of firearm owners. But it doesn’t mean that all reason must be thrown out the window. My son has his own right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is a very small infringement on the 2A to ensure that the people entrusted with his care in a school setting are properly qualified to safely do their jobs without threatening his freedoms.
My first thought would be…so .50 BMG rifles…are they bearable? I’m not sure everybody who wants one could pick it up and carry it, fire it from the shoulder, etc.
But I have a quote I will dig up about arms vs armament I will post later, that deals with this, and explains very articulately how and why NBC don’t really fall under the 2A for individuals (not legalese, just a gun guy who is articulate)
To put it shortly: Are government employees working on government property on the clock for the government, The People?
Yes. Why would constitutional rights not apply to people working for the government? Do the U.S. President and his cabinet not have a right to freedom of speech? Can the DMV refuse to hire someone because they fail a religious test?
Very interesting argument. Then the point that I have the right to take my son to a safer school, becomes the teacher has the right to take a job where they are allowed to carry.
Though I would argue that because of the 2A, as many public employees as possible working on public land should have the right to carry. As long as it can be shown it can be safely done. Which a well designed training program would do when it comes to staff carrying at school.
There are very specific but strict 1st Amendment restrictions on government agents, from cabinet members all the way down to buck privates, especially regarding political speech. They don’t apply to the President, and perhaps not other elected officials, but they apply to almost everyone else.
If we are going full-on “use government to enact our personal preferences”, then why can’t we go ahead and require a declaration of Christianity to work in public schools? If the teachers aren’t part of “The People” when working, then it shouldn’t be a problem, correct? They can resume whatever religious practice they want when they’re off the clock. If they don’t like it, they can go work somewhere else.
You can’t require that because of the 1st amendment. But you can limit a persons ability to actively exercise aspects of that religion while they are at work at a public school. Otherwise you would have to allow Church of Satan members to conduct animal sacrifices on school grounds.
Sure, just like you can limit a gun carrier’s ability to actively shoot and brandish the firearm on school grounds, but you can’t prevent them from carrying it, because of the 2nd amendment.
I could make the argument that brandishing is just another form of bearing arms and should be protected by the 2A. Especially given how poorly written and subjective most brandishing laws are.
And there is no age limit in the 2A. Should high school students be allowed to carry at school? Many of them are old enough to have served in the Revolution. If high school students can than why not junior high students? Why should their rights be denied?
Lines have to get drawn somewhere. I’m proposing we use a little reason to draw them in the right places that preserve as much liberty as possible without causing unnecessary harm that in the end will just cost us more rights.
I’m just too busy today and can’t find the quote yet, but when it comes to reducing the argument to the absurd and talking about nuclear devices, NBC, etc, the gist of the difference between arms and armament is like this, IMO:
Discrete vs indiscreet
Threat to society at large
NBC is, practically speaking, generally, not discrete. It is indiscriminate. It does things and impacts people you can’t even know it will so you can’t make the decision to justifiably use something when you can’t even know who it is going to effect/kill (and in large scale, and over time)
Also, the idea of the 2A is more that a group of people acting in concert can effect change, have an impact, etc, not that one crazy person can hold an entire city hostage or kill tens/hundreds of thousands of people in a few seconds if he’s not happy
