Sunday, August 5, 2012

Of Arms and Gun Control

Aurora, Colorado; Columbine, "Going postal", and the list goes on.




First of all, let's examine the existing legal framework. In the United States that begins with the United States Constitution. There are additional arguments that could be added about its authority and the source of that authority, but they are controversial and their inclusion is more likely to distract from the issues, rather than support constructive conversation and analysis. The United States Constitution consists of a preamble (this is the origin of the controversy hinted at), 7 original articles, and 20+ codicils added later known as the "Articles of Amendment" or, informally, simply as the "Amendments".  The first ten of these Amendments are known collectively as the "Bill of Rights".  The second clause of the sixth original article makes the Constitution and the treaties of the United States the highest law of the land (neglecting the issue of conflict alluded to earlier). The third clause of that same article makes a requirement that all federal and state officers (at all levels) swear an oath of support for the Constitution prior to taking public office. It also has special instructions to the state and federal judiciary.


Let's take the time to convert this to more contemporary language:
Not quite as concise is it? Here are the points that have been expanded upon:

  • Keep - possess and/or own.
  • Bear - carry, or be able to make use of. 


Fourth Amendment -

Fifth Amendment -




So, a model regulatory law needs the following:

  1. A statement of purpose. This is not legally compelling, but it does serve as a guide to the courts as to the original intent when interpreting it. The law should not be named after any individuals or historic events. This is so later courts long after the event and it's principles are gone are not busy busy trying to gather facts about ancient history to decide future cases based on this statute. Declarations of this nature need to be a separate law.They provide no functional value to the model law.
  3. It should create a list of excluded citizens who are prohibited from arms possession. That list must identify the specific restrictions as to type of arms, duration of restriction, and how the person is restricted in relation to them (ownership, possession, purchase, or sale). 
  8. Once removed, a person's status on that list must be sealed.
  12. It should override any other state or federal law concerning arms ownership or possession.



  1. Actually Richard, other than requiring another once-over for typos, which admittedly distract from the content, I find your proposal very sound and well-considered.

    Is that as far as it goes, or have you plans for attracting someone's attention with it for further consideration?

  2. Yeah, I made several typos. I also forgot the requirement that registered arms dealers need to check the list against restricted individuals - that part is essential.

    I haven't sought a sponsor yet - the topic is still yet too new - but I'd love suggestions in this direction. And proofreading is very welcome. :)

    Coming from someone with your standing such comments feel quite good.

  3. The commonly-held beliefs you espouse in the following paragraph don't make sense in the context of the Bill of Rights, history of the American revolution, and Founding Father's goals and experiences:


    The Second Amendment has nothing to do with ensuring that the militia is armed and well-regulated (effective and proficient). On the contrary, The Second Amendment was devised to protect people FROM the militia and, because the militia lies under the realm and control of government, as it did during the Revolutionary War, it protects the people from the eventual tyranny of government.

    The militia is only mentioned in the "preamble" section of the Second Amendment. As was popular in the day of the Founding Fathers, the motivation behind a rule of law was included in a preamble. The Second Amendment was indeed motivated by the existence of a militia (or standing army today), which is necessary to protect the security of a free state, but the rule of law section of the Second Amendment protects the rights of "The People," as opposed to the militia. It does not protect a means to arm a militia, as is commonly believed--even by "pro-gun people." If the founders had been concerned about arming the militia, they would have written "militia" instead of "the right of the people." They didn't do this because the militia doesn't need protecting. It exists under the realm of government itself. A protection for the militia or any other government interest is inconsistent with the entire Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is entirely about protecting "The People" from tyrannical government, including protection from a militia or standing army. Penn and Teller's well-reasoned read of The Second Amendment is the only argument that makes sense in the context of the Bill of Rights, the history of the American Revolution, and the Founding Fathers' experiences and goals. Some people may not like what the Founders created, but they should accept the obvious truth of the matter! I have far more respect for this argument and Penn and Teller's argument than anything the Supremes have to say. Sadly, gun grabbers don't respond to reason at all!

  4. Great article for sure. You should make it a web page for free on To see what I'm talking about and to reach a lot more folks check out my article on the 2nd amendment at the following address: And the title is "Firearms Ownership in America" and my other favorite is Education on the Constitution and Bill of Rights - What Do You Know?
    Your article is easy to make on squidoo and will reach millions once published. It's all free and self explanatory - try it and check out my article's also. On squidoo your webpage's are called lens.
    Enjoy and keep on educating folks. America is on the verge of collapse. Dan aka Mrducksmrnot n Western NC - Open Carry State.

    1. Thank you for the kind offer - but I own my own web site already - I own a software company and I also program and design web pages. Been in general IT for over 30 years (about as long my oath!) I'm using Blogger because of some technical advantages using the Google platform.

      If you need technical support don't be afraid to ask.

      And I'm one of the people you "liked" your link shares :)

      I have a planned article coming up (when I have sufficient time and motivation) on a more advanced public revenue system. Also another one one the "controversial" issue I eluded to in the article and also hinted at in a comment at the site you found this link (the "popular sovereignty" remark).

  5. I was addressing those who try to misuse the "militia" clause. I'm not using myths though to make my argument. The militia was the common person. As one writer at the time put it (my memory is just a little hazy and I'm quoting from that, so there is likely some inaccuracy) "men from 16 to 60". The actual language in the United States Code defines it as "men from ages 18 to 45" (and that language has been there almost as long as the Constitution has existed!). What the founders were concerned about were standing armies of trained professional soldiers. Those are NOT the militia.

    The Constitution does separate out the terms. The army required funding to simply exist, but the militia could be called up at any time of foreign invasion or rebellion - it was preexisting. The terms often get conflated (the Supreme Court was guilty of this very mistake in Arver - horrible case!) Penn & Teller were just trying to keep their arguments simple and weren't out to correct people on a detail that have any impact on their argument. (I looked up the video after you mentioned it).

    But those who misuse that sub-clause often try to attack it's contemporary worth by taking advantage of that common linguistic error.

    We are actually on the same page (mostly) though.

  6. @AvelWorldCreator

    "What the founders were concerned about were standing armies of trained professional soldiers. Those are NOT the militia."

    Agreed! The founders certainly had concerns about standing armies. However, the militia was still very much an entity that lay under the realm and control of government and it was the preferred means of protecting the security of the free state in the early days of the nation. However, the existence of the militia did not need protecting nor would protecting it be consistent with the remainder of the Bill of Rights. The key point that Penn and Teller make is the distinction between "the militia" and "the people" is clearly made in the Second Amendment. The only way the distinction can be logically explained is to accept that "the people" must be armed and able to oppose "the militia," if ever necessary to thwart a tyrannical government.

    Thanks for watching the Penn and Teller video. Certainly they make a simple argument, but I find the Second Amendment to be very simple itself!

  7. I mention a planned article that explains why the militia was NOT under government control. The government could only "call" the militia not "assemble" or "compel". Militia activity was voluntary. And the usage of the term in the 2nd Ad. included that it was necessary for a free people. Penn & Teller made sure to point out that the right belonged to the people in general and not just those who chose to be part of the militia. The right secured the existence of a militia, but did not require membership in it to have the right. In modern times it would be better to use the phrase "community volunteers" instead of "militia" - it's much less confusing. There were no role conflicts - the right to bear arms belongs to the people, and some of those people can choose to be community volunteers that exercise that right for the public good. :)See how that works? Breaking it down like that really destroys the deceptive arguments of the gun-control crowd.