Yes, It Seems Unreasonable On Its Face
Bill Quick

Best of the Web Today: What’s on Second? The Ninth. –

Peruta would make a good test case, because it would allow the justices to establish that right without getting into the weeds of what restrictions on it would be reasonable. The plaintiffs do not challenge the requirements of a training course and “good moral character.” The former is unobjectionable and is required by many states with permissive “shall issue” carry policies. The latter could be applied in questionable ways–would California deny a carry permit to Bill Clinton?–but it doesn’t seem unreasonable on its face.

Oh, horseshit.  WTF does hewing to some religious stricture or other have to do with your unalienable right to effective self-defense?

I’m an atheist.  This alone would be enough for many of the religious to regard me as a horribly immoral character.  But why should I have to bow to gods in which I don’t believe in order to bear arms, a right that, according to the Second Amendment, “shall not be infringed.”

The short answer is that I should not.  A somewhat longer answer is that the state has been engaged in a complicated game for more than two hundred years to try to break the flat prohibition imposed upon it by the Second:  Shall not be infringed means shall not be infringed.

Wannabe tyrants, almost from the passage of the Bill of Rights, have desperately tried to interpret the extremely plain language of the Second as somehow meaning other than what it says – not because they don’t understand what it says and means, but because they hate and fear and armed citizenry capable of effectively resistiing their power, and they mean to see that such a citizenry is rendered impossible.

Liberty-haters bent on citizen disarmament have often hung their hats on a grammatically meaningles preferatory clause in the amendment in an illogical effort to claim it only guarantees the RKBA for state militias like the national guards.  But ask yourself:  If that preferatory clause had been left off, and the Second simply stated that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, do you honestly think the statist hoplophobes would accept that those words mean what they say?

Of course they wouldn’t.  They are dishonest to the core, and want to strip guns from the hands of Americans by any means necessary.

Tyrants like these are exactly why the Framers guaranteed us the RKBA in the first place.

As for Taranto, how would he like to have to pass a “good moral character” test in order to write and publish his column?  He finds restrictions on my right to keep and bear arms  “reasonable on their face,” but I’m confident he would scream his head off if similar restrictions were applied to his First Amendment-guaranteed rights.

Bill Quick

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Yes, It Seems Unreasonable On Its Face — 3 Comments

  1. The hell, a training requirement is unobjectionable. Aside from the plain meaning of “shall not be infringed” (ie, it means “Don’t infringe it, you piece of shit”), training requirements have been used to pervert the intent of state “shall issue” laws. Sheriffs departments or some state agency are put in charge of certifying and selecting trainers and — shock! — only donors to the sheriff are selected, or no trainers within a reasonable distance of a metro area are available, or only one trainer is certified and he can handle only four dozen students per year but the paper pushers say they’ve met the law’s requirements.

    Here’s an idea: scrap the training requirement and just make the shooter criminally and civilly liable if he shoots someone carelessly? We wouldn’t even need any new laws, as he’d already be liable if he carelessly hurt someone with, say, an axe. Or is this notion objectionable to politicians because it doesn’t give enough opportunity for graft?

    • Ding!

      The FFLs here in California love the law that requires honest citizens to pay them expensive fees for five minutes worth of paper shuffling. I asked an FFL if he approved of this system, and if he thought it was constitutional. He said, “How else can we keep everybody safe?”

  2. Try this on for size: A statement along the lines of “anyone CONVICTED of a Felony Offense involving violence, with or without a deadly weapon, or ADJUDGED mentally incompetent, in a Court Of Law and by a Jury of their Peers” might – MIGHT – be considered a “reasonable restriction” – especially if paired with a clear-cut path to removal of said restriction via legal restitution or governmental pardon.

    The statement “of good moral character”, however, is clearly vulnerable-to-interpretation-and-therefore-to-abuse, Statist bullshit, and is also clearly not only UNreasonable, UNConstitutional and UNwarranted, it’s totally UNacceptable – as is the attitude of anyone, politician or not, who would find such a statement to be even worthy of consideration in connection with “reasonable restriction(s)” on the citizenry of this Nation of ours.

    The FFLs here in California love the law that requires honest citizens to pay them expensive fees for five minutes worth of paper shuffling. I asked an FFL if he approved of this system, and if he thought it was constitutional. He said, “How else can we keep everybody safe?”

    Oh, my, yes…how well that’s working in terms of “keeping everybody safe”. Folks in the big cities – above and beyond the ones in Cali, think: Chicago, New York, Newark, etc. – just luuuurve the magnificent way all that filling-out-forms-for-a-fee is keepin’ ‘em safer and safer, every day in every way…NOT!!!

    I’m working on getting my F.F.L. back, even though I’ve found I don’t really need it, legally or otherwise (despite what the FedGov BATboys/girls would have you and me believe), to do the gunsmith/gun repair work I do. This is specifically so that I can do transfers for folks at actual cost (which is very little, really – a couple of forms, a toll-free phone call or two, and you’re there…), thus further promoting wider-spread firearms ownership and usage, and maybe kneecapping a few of the more-egregious “FFL profiteers” at the same time.