CDR: Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...

[Declan McCullagh]

This is a somewhat interesting question. Presumably just as the right
to speak freely includes the right to keep one's silence, the right to
bear arms includes the right to remain weaponless (modulo conscription).

The 2A arguably goes further than the 1A; the first is a literal
prohibition on what Congress may do (at least in those pre-14th days),
while the second says the right "shall not be infringed." So if we
agree the right exists, by a strict originalist reading of the
Constitution, it's reasonable that it would be unconstitutional for
any government to require such.

-Declan


On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 07:35:33PM -0500, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
>      Yes, while it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to
> pass this law, how could it be unconstitutional as a local or state
> statute?  Something similar to requiring X number of smoke detectors per
> square foot.  Additionally, it does not mention a paperwork requirement for
> not owning a gun.
> 
>      While I admit it seems like a foolish law (akin to requiring a citizen
> to vote), I hardly see how it would require 'a killing'.  Also, given their
> views, killing them may not be as easy as others who are unarmed. ;-)
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -p
> 
> "Those who would give up essential liberty for temporary safety deserve
> neither liberty nor safety" - Benjamin Franklin, 1759
> 
> 
> Tim May <tcmay at got.net>@cyberpass.net on 11/05/2000 04:32:13 PM
> 
> Please respond to Tim May <tcmay at got.net>
> 
> Sent by:  owner-cypherpunks at cyberpass.net
> 
> 
> To:   cypherpunks at cyberpass.net
> cc:
> Subject:  Re: Here's an interesting twist on gun control ...
> 
> 
> 
> At 3:37 PM -0500 11/5/00, Peter Capelli/Raleigh/Contr/IBM wrote:
> >http://www.cnn.com/2000/US/11/05/mandatory.guns.ap/index.html
> >
> >
> >
> >                   Utah town requires all households to own gun
> >
> >                   November 5, 2000
> >                   Web posted at: 11:22 AM EST (1622 GMT)
> >
> >                   VIRGIN, Utah (AP) -- This tiny southern Utah town
> >has enacted an ordinance
> >                   requiring a gun and ammunition in every home for
> >residents' self-defense.
> >
> >                   Most of Virgin's 350 residents already own
> >firearms, so the initiative has lots of
> >                   support, Mayor Jay Lee said.
> >
> >                   Residents had expressed fear that their Second
> >Amendment right to bear arms
> >                   was under fire, so the town council modeled a
> >similar measure passed by a
> >                   Georgia city about 12 years ago.
> >
> >                   The mentally ill, convicted felons, conscientious
> >objectors and people who
> >                   cannot afford to own a gun are exempt.
> 
> This has been done before. A town in Georgia, one in Ohio or
> Illinois, as I recall.
> 
> t is just as unconstitutional to _require_ a gun as it is to _ban_ guns.
> 
> The crap about "conscientious objector" is just that, crap. I shouldn't
> have to fill out some bullshit form to say I have conscientious
> objections to having a gun in my house.
> 
> Government may no more require a gun in a house than it may require a
> television, or a telephone, or a toothbrush.
> 
> Yes, I know the law is pure fluff, and hence is moot, a nullity, as
> they say. But the principle of _requiring_ a  gun is just as foolish
> as the notion of banning guns. Frankly, those who pass such laws need
> killing just as much as the tens of thousands who are banning guns
> need killing.
> 
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> --
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> "Cyphernomicon"             | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 
> 
>