A 100% access, super-strict liability approach to guns in America

[Greg Davidson]

Here's a wild idea, may be a bad one, it's almost definitely not feasible, but I would be interested in feedback from strong 2nd Amendment supporters. 

What if there was no limit whatsoever on who could buy a gun. Zero. But we do add steps so that every time a person is murdered with a gun, we could impose a liability penalty on those who had custody at some point over the murder weapon.  Those steps may be expensive and annoying bureaucracy, they may even be draconian, they may create paranoia in the minds of those who believe they are justified in using hidden weapons against the US government, but would this approach address all of the issues associated specifically with the Second Amendment? Assuming you would not agree with this approach, why not?

Here's how it would work:
Every gun had to have a ballistics fingerprint in a national database (like a DNA database), every gun had to have a registered owner (would need a gun census only performed once), every gun sale (and re-sale) had to be registered, and if a gun was used in a murder then each person in the chain of custody would be liable for a sizable fine, say $1 million. The liability would be the same even if the gun were stolen.  And failure to register a gun would similarly carry a high fine (say, $100K per unregistered gun).

[Gaoics79]

So let me get this straight: I buy a gun. Then I sell it to you. Then you sell it 10 years later to your uncle, who gets burglarized and has it stolen. Then the burglar shoots someone. And I am fined $1,000,000?

I would not agree with this approach because it's *censored*ing stupid.

[Fenring]

I think Greg's intent is to create a system where is a gun is misused then *someone* is automatically liable for it. I suppose it's not worth mentioning that under such a system the insurance to protect yourself from such liability would be so expensive that owning a gun would de facto be impossible except for rich people. But perhaps that sort of detail misses the point. Would this sort of liability also apply to car dealers whose clients drive into a crowd? No, I must stop with these off-topic questions. The real issue is: how can we make sense of why these things happen? Having someone be legally at fault would create a sense of closure, even if that liability didn't reasonably contribute to the terrible event. But this desire for accountability strikes me as being an inherently good one, if mis-tuned in the particular example Greg suggests. I suppose I'll be a broken record on this and suggest that the first place to begin with accountability should be with government. Regardless of the disagreement about which law enforcement agency failed here, I think it's clear that in general the system is malfunctioning. I would suggest that this is a symptom rather than a cause of problems.

[Greg Davidson]

This is more a thought experiment than a serious policy.  It is an attempt both not to limit the freedom to own guns in any way whatsoever, but also be hyper-vigilant about responsibility. If you cause a gun to be manufactured, or if you choose not to destroy a gun that you own, then you share some of the responsibility if that gun is ever used in a murder. Theoretically, if you were a gun owner, that would make you as careful with that gun as if your own life depended on it. 

From some of the arguments I have heard about the 2nd Amendment, it's really about the freedom to own, and there isn't any part of the 2nd Amendment that limits your responsibility for potential murders later committed with a gun that you currently own.  So this seems like a policy that fully addresses the 2nd Amendment concerns, and therefore I am wondering what are the residual concerns that pro-gun-freedom people would have if we came up with a policy that addressed the 2nd Amendment, but still put a huge amount of pressure to prevent gun murders.

[Crunch]

The idea of making completely innocent people responsible for the crimes of others is so absurd it’s not worth considering for even a moment. I can’t believe it’s even a topic on this forum.

[Greg Davidson]

But the people in question are not complete innocents, Crunch. I am trying to put this in a framework that is free from government limitations, a conservative-side solution instead of a liberal one.

Surely you would agree that if a person were to produce a deadly neuro-toxin or genetically modified virus that was capable of doing harm, they would have some responsibility if that escaped their lab and actually killed people. And if they were to sell that neuro-toxin to someone else, and that second person used the neuro-toxin to kill people, there would be some liability for the original creator. My suggestion on guns is an exaggerated extrapolation on this premise, and if it helps you answer the question, we could limit this to guns whose primary design is to kill large numbers of human beings (rather than a shotgun or hunting rifle). 

I would like to hear a pro-gun advocate describe the principle that makes this approach wrong, because if you reject strict liability then you are left with (a) the necessity of government regulation, or (b) a society in which there is no way of limiting a harmful externality.

[Crunch]

Yes, they are innocent. You’re taking a rather juvenile tack to make out gun ownership makes people liable for future crimes of which they are not in any way culpable. That is not “free from government limitations”. In fact, it is the ultimate government limitation.

Imagine your deeply flawed logic applied to cars. You buy one, drive it a few years, trade it in to the dealership and get a new one. The car is subsequently sold and the nee owner drives under the influence, committing vehicular man slaughter. You and dealership should be held criminally liable as well? In fact, a car dealership would be held liable for  thousands of crimes with this stupid idea.

There is no legal, moral, ethical, nor intellectual foundation for this argument. It’s bankrupt in every way.

[Greg Davidson]

The difference with cars is that driving is a privilege, a driver's license comes only with passing a written test, and then passing a behind-the-wheel test. 

I was trying a thought experiment to explore the other extreme, what if we didn't impose requirements that regulated the safety of a dangerous product, but instead tried to protect society solely through a chain of liability.

[Lloyd Perna]

Greg, I suppose parents should be criminally liable if their adult children commit crimes then?

[D.W.]

The difference with cars is that driving is a privilege, a driver's license comes only with passing a written test, and then passing a behind-the-wheel test. 

I was trying a thought experiment to explore the other extreme, what if we didn't impose requirements that regulated the safety of a dangerous product, but instead tried to protect society solely through a chain of liability.

Then the only drivers would be the very rich.  I don't even know if we could have "public transportation" at that point, but maybe a city could absorb the cost.  Granted they would be scrapping their fleet periodically and buying new.

Part of why I'm pro-gun ownership is I believe we have evolved beyond a might-makes right society.  To suggest that we codify a wealth-makes right society (more than it already is) is equally disgusting.  That is after all the only thing such a proposal could achieve. 

[DonaldD]

Does the second amendment, in addition to providing for the right to own and wield weapons, provide for the right to sell or otherwise transfer possession of those weapons?

Clearly, such a right implies the ability to acquire weapons in some fashion.  But does/should such a right preclude government from regulating personal sales and other transfers of ownership?

I bet there is already jurisprudence in this area...

[D.W.]

All that metal working and mining would give you arms of a bear!  That's obviously what they were referring to.

[Fenring]

I still don't see how the right to bear arms should be in conflict with a policy requiring the arms to be either a) registered, or b) requiring a license to own, or c) requiring a certificate of firearms training. Not that I'm specifically advocating for any or all of these, but none of them breach the right to self-defence (which I understand is the basis of the 2nd) but do put specifications on how people would be allowed to go about protecting themselves with guns, specifically. It's much like the right to transportation (i.e. the right to move about freely in the country), where the means itself isn't guaranteed. So while each person may have the right to board some kind of motorized vehicle (bus, taxi, train, etc) nothing specifies that each individual has the inherent right, without licensing, to personally operate a motor vehicle. So while 'the people' have an inherent right to self-defence, is it 100% understood in constitutional law that this directly implies that each person has the right to bear firearms, without any possible provision around that (such as a license)? People have a right to procure food for themselves, for instance, but to hunt or fish you need a license. You'd think getting food for yourself would be a natural right, and yet to avoid mayhem the licensing is done. Or maybe it's a cash grab by the state. But if hunting licensing wasn't managed carefully the danger of hunting or fishing out the wildlife would be too much for it to be sustainable.

I'm sure these arguments have been made umpteen times. My main point is that surely there's a way to both protect the 2nd and to avoid fanciful notions such as the one Greg is proposing (i.e. to create a market-based barrier to gun ownership), while still creating difficulties for crazy kids to get their hands on guns. Overall my view has always been that increased training and sensitivity will always help with gun safety and respect, and likewise I think that increasing the rigor involved in distributing guns would paradoxically also increase the good feeling of having a gun. For those people whose good feelings derive specifically from how easy it was to get the gun - I would suggest that this is the type of good feeling that doesn't need to be catered to. Most gun owners are responsible and take their weapons seriously, and for such people I don't see how a small administrative barrier would do much to curtail their enjoyment of their firearms and their ability to establish safety for their family.

[TheDrake]

Fenring, I think I've come to understand those objections as "the right to rebellion". For personal defense and hunting, it is relatively difficult to argue against proficiency tests and other common sense barriers.

For the other aspect, that people might have to use those guns against the government itself, having registration lists are portrayed as a road map for the government to come find the patriots and suppress them.

That's why we don't (in theory) keep a list of people applying for background checks. Otherwise, we might identify people buying lots of guns (and selling them?). It's also why neat little technology solutions (like having locators on guns) also wouldn't get off the ground.

Another reason liability wouldn't work because of the large numbers of people who wouldn't have any money to take - people with little or no savings wouldn't worry about the risk. This is what happened with automobiles and the need to require proof of insurance - because otherwise people would shrug and drive around without insurance until they hit somebody.

[Fenring]

For the other aspect, that people might have to use those guns against the government itself, having registration lists are portrayed as a road map for the government to come find the patriots and suppress them.

If there was a registry of every single gun owned, then yes, I could see this as being an issue. We could suggest keeping the registries by state only and keeping it away from the Federal government, but even then I doubt the states could prevent NSA getting their hands on everything if they felt like it. But then the issue becomes linked to another one, where I would argue that NSA collecting data within the U.S. should stop as well.

But instead of individual gun registry if it was the person registered then the government would have no way of knowing whether a licensed gun owner actually owned any guns or not, which would eliminate the difficulty of a registry and it being used against people. The only requirement would be that your license would specify your level of training proficiency, so that someone cleared on hunting rifles wouldn't have access to automatic weapons until they pass that certification too. If such a system were in place it would likewise serve as a filter to early-detect dangerous personalities of a certain sort. A high-functioning sociopath would like pass through such a system without incident, while a very angsty teenager with anger issues would hit red flags and the instructors would presumably have a duty to report that. At least it would be a single legal stage where such persons could be noticed, providing they haven't already provided the FBI will convenient videos announcing their evil plans.

[Seriati]

Here's a wild idea, may be a bad one, it's almost definitely not feasible, but I would be interested in feedback from strong 2nd Amendment supporters. 

What if there was no limit whatsoever on who could buy a gun. Zero.

Why would we want that?

But we do add steps so that every time a person is murdered with a gun, we could impose a liability penalty on those who had custody at some point over the murder weapon.  Those steps may be expensive and annoying bureaucracy, they may even be draconian, they may create paranoia in the minds of those who believe they are justified in using hidden weapons against the US government, but would this approach address all of the issues associated specifically with the Second Amendment? Assuming you would not agree with this approach, why not?

No.  This approach wouldn't address any relevant issues specifically associated with the Second Amendment.  What do you think the "issues" are? 

I don't agree with any "approach" that imposes absurd levels of penalty on the exercise of a fundamental right.  You seem to think this is a constraint on a "seller" and might stop them from selling onwards recklessly, but this is really an assault on a buyer as no one would sell a weapon for less than a fortune.  Effectively depriving the vast majority of people of the right to defend themselves.

Would you agree to apply this "chain of custody" idea in other contexts?  How about, everytime we have a murderer we apply personal responsibility of everyone who "failed" along the way.  After all, every teacher of that individual had a chance and responsibility to teach them better and to catch the problem, so did their doctor and their parents.  Would we have many teachers if they had personal responsibility for the crimes of their former students?

I think Greg's intent is to create a system where is a gun is misused then *someone* is automatically liable for it. I suppose it's not worth mentioning that under such a system the insurance to protect yourself from such liability would be so expensive that owning a gun would de facto be impossible except for rich people.

I should note we do have a similar system (though reversed) for environmental contamination.  If you buy a property that a previous owner has polluted, even if you did everything in your power to verify there were no pollutants on it, you are economically responsible for the clean up.  Of course so are the past owners, but often times heavy polluters went out of business and only the new owner is available.  It has created massively unfair results in the past, but the alternative would be what?

From some of the arguments I have heard about the 2nd Amendment, it's really about the freedom to own, and there isn't any part of the 2nd Amendment that limits your responsibility for potential murders later committed with a gun that you currently own.

Actually, your rule would severely limit the ability and freedom to own as costs would become stratospheric.

And second, there are plenty of limits on your responsibility for murders conducted with a fire arm you own.  The intervening actions of another persons, like the murderer, can completely eliminate any responsibility you may have.

So this seems like a policy that fully addresses the 2nd Amendment concerns, and therefore I am wondering what are the residual concerns that pro-gun-freedom people would have if we came up with a policy that addressed the 2nd Amendment, but still put a huge amount of pressure to prevent gun murders.

Depends on the policy.  Would of thought you'd innately turn away from collective punishment, haven't you decried it in other contexts?

[Seriati]

But instead of individual gun registry if it was the person registered then the government would have no way of knowing whether a licensed gun owner actually owned any guns or not, which would eliminate the difficulty of a registry and it being used against people.

Except the history on this in one that clearly shows government abuse, with anti-gun activists routinely stretching this into requiring proof of need before issuing a license.

I have an alternative.  Require gun safety classes for all middle schoolers.  No reason we couldn't demystify and teach respect at the same time.  It would also ensure that their are teachers with high gun proficiency on site.

[D.W.]

I don’t think it should be, or was intended to be, in conflict with any of your points Fenring.  While in my state one has the option to open carry, or to store at home a weapon without going through those “small administrative barriers” that description applies to Concealed Pistol Licenses fairly accurately. 

Like my driver’s license, it is subject to renewal.  There is a small fee.  There was training and a test similar to (a much abbreviated) driver’s education program.  While driver’s ed was free through our school at the time I took it, a lot of people pay for it out of pocket.  Making that no different from the CPL class.

I also had had a criminal background check done by the state police.  I also got printed by the state police.  Needed to check I was who I said I was and wasn’t a suspect who’s prints were already on file makes sense.  But it is what it is.  I’m “in the system” now.  I accepted that this license was a “privilege” and treated it, and allowed it to be treated, as such.  I essentially told the state, “I understand that you don’t like that a citizen is carrying a firearm and am willing to make it as easy as possible for you to find and punish me if I ever go bad”. 

I came to this decision because I believe in having the ability (almost said “right” there) to defend myself with the most effective means available to me, should the need arise.  I also had the money to pay for a firearm, ammunition, the CPL training, the license fee and renewal fee(s).  Not to mention the cost of range time and ammunition to practice with such that it is a tool I’m proficient with rather than just a security blanket…

Not all are comfortable with that bargain of state scrutiny.  Not all are comfortable with even that economic barrier for defense.  Most, who are honest with themselves see “hypothetical’s” like Greg’s to be nothing more than asking the question, “How can we ban guns in practice if not in name with a way consistent with the Constitution?”

For the record, I’m for the CPL guide lines being applied to all firearm ownership.  I’m for reciprocity across all states for CPL (or just a generic “Fire Arm License” if that change was implemented).  I think the training, which currently focuses, almost exclusively, on the legal aspects of use of force, should also cover weapons proficiency to a greater degree.  I don’t know if a comprehensive class covering hunting rifles, home defense or every day carry or individual classes tailored relevant to the individual is best.  With longer classes, the cost would also go up.  With greater proficiency focus, cost of ammunition would go up.  Time required to do so would also increase, making it harder for many to find the time. 

None of that changes my opinion (much), but they should be considered.  A single working parent on a tight budget may find it hard to find the time and money to get licensed.  Regardless on your opinions on IF they should have a weapon in the first place, raising barriers that do not “put pressure to prevent gun murderers” may not be the best option.

The only time I’m for punishing those other than the shooter, are when someone allows another to employ their weapon through negligence (guardian leaves them accessible and unlocked) or willingly aids them in circumventing laws that would otherwise prevent the shooter from owning that weapon in the first place (guardian buys it “for them”).

[D.W.]

I like Seriati’s idea of gun safety classes, but would add they should be something you can opt out of.  Or require a parent’s permission to attend.  I’m less keen on the parent’s permission, but that seems to be the way we treat these things when dealing with minors. 

When it comes to things like religion, sex ed, and even driver’s training we defer to the guardian’s judgment.  This seems to fall into the same categories.  Unless one cares to make the case of public safety such as requiring immunizations before attending public school…

[Fenring]

If it was a publicly mandated middle-school training program, then opting out should disqualify you to ever own a gun, right? And if you ever want to own one subsequently then you would have to enroll (at your own expense) in an adult version of that course to become certified. Overall I don't see this as being much different than a general opt-in certification done out of school, other than of course the convenience of having everyone in school taught at once so that the coverage is good. But if such a middle-school course had no legal implication (meaning you could opt out with no consequence) then I don't see the point. Unless it becomes a graded course, in which case you'd have to pass in order to graduate. That wouldn't be so bad, maybe. But if so it would be tough to bring immigrants into that system since they'd not be going to middle-school as adults and would need an alternative system to go through.

Overall I agree with Seriati that regulations or licensing shouldn't allow for abuses to soft-ban people from having guns if they're responsible people. Personally I don't see why proof of need has to be a requirement for such a license. Why even have a provision for that? Wouldn't it just be possible to tell the anti-gun crowd "too bad, we're not having any such provision"?

[Crunch]

Does the second amendment, in addition to providing for the right to own and wield weapons, provide for the right to sell or otherwise transfer possession of those weapons?

Clearly, such a right implies the ability to acquire weapons in some fashion.  But does/should such a right preclude government from regulating personal sales and other transfers of ownership?

I bet there is already jurisprudence in this area...

Part of the problem is your misunderstanding of the second amendment. The second amendment does not provide a right to own weapons. It recognizes that right. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of ruled, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". Being armed is sometimes considered an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression.

[Seriati]

If it was a publicly mandated middle-school training program, then opting out should disqualify you to ever own a gun, right? And if you ever want to own one subsequently then you would have to enroll (at your own expense) in an adult version of that course to become certified.

Not a chance.  Parents don't have the right to eliminate their children's constitutional rights.

I'd be inclined to not allow an opt out.  What's the basis for it?  Can parents opt their children out of any subject matter they don't like?  Evolution? Client Science?  Sensitivity Training?  Physical education?

I don't approve of the current sex ed opt outs as it is.

Overall I agree with Seriati that regulations or licensing shouldn't allow for abuses to soft-ban people from having guns if they're responsible people.

But that's how it starts.  Who decides who is a "responsible" person?  Disallowing ownership of a gun is tantamount to declaring that a person is not entitled to self defense.  What justifies that?  Things like proven malfeasance.  Mental health indicators that show someone is a danger to self or others.  Really evidence that a person completely misconstrues the violence called for  in a situation or willingly uses violence when uncalled for.

Personally I don't see why proof of need has to be a requirement for such a license. Why even have a provision for that? Wouldn't it just be possible to tell the anti-gun crowd "too bad, we're not having any such provision"?

Even if you don't have one, "shall issue" frequently becomes "may issue."  Can you imagine the outrage if at the DMV they asked you why you needed a license and denied them for anyone that didn't drive professionally.  Uber driver gets a license, working parent - you can take the bus.  That's literally how they have enforced such provisions in some places.

[DonaldD]

Part of the problem is your misunderstanding of the second amendment. The second amendment does not provide a right to own weapons. It recognizes that right. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of ruled, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence". Being armed is sometimes considered an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression.

This is, of course, irrelevant to my questions.  Rephrase it as "recognizing" instead of "providing for" - the post is otherwise unchanged.

[Seriati]

So I think its time for Hollywood to put its money where it's mouth is.  I call for accurate representations of guns in film.  No more of the average criminals using fully automatic weapons.  Cop shows, the officers need to only be allowed to fire their guns based on the average total shots for the region in which they operate.  The average - by the way - might surprise you.  The vast majority of officers in the country never fire their weapon in the line of duty in their entire career.  Even in NYC, I was looking at an annual report less 40 in one year out of 35,000 officers.  No officer ever had to reload during an event.

Hollywood loves excitement, but a major reason we have gun "issues" and miseducation in this country is their deliberate misrepresentation.

While we're at it, quit depicting criminals sympathetically and with honor.  No more pretending it's honorable to keep silent to the police.  Or that a joining a gang is somehow the cool option.

[Fenring]

Seriati, would this middle-school program have within it the capability of reporting dangerous-seeming children to authorities for future reference should they ever try to buy a gun? In other words, would there in your view by any possibility of a program for people of that age being able to act as a filter to catch certain people who by no means should ever be allowed to have a firearm? Until there's a massive revolution in the U.S. in terms of mental health care and support I don't see how such dangerous people can be stopped from doing whatever they want unless they're stupid enough to make Youtube videos announcing their intentions. Do you think that whatever system is used to ensure gun education (whether a school program, or a licensing program) should also be the same vehicle for early detection of maniacs? In theory we might suppose that a Hannibal Lecter type sociopath might be able to fool any program because he's disciplined and courteous, but in reality I think a lot of disturbed young people are very apparently disturbed to those around them. So would such a program have the authority to do something about it?

[Seriati]

Seriati, would this middle-school program have within it the capability of reporting dangerous-seeming children to authorities for future reference should they ever try to buy a gun? In other words, would there in your view by any possibility of a program for people of that age being able to act as a filter to catch certain people who by no means should ever be allowed to have a firearm?

Let's call out the left's gutting of the involuntary commitment system for the mistake it was.  The system needed reform, but the pendulum swung too far.

I have a fairly simple test here.  If someone is at a point where you are talking about a permanent ban on possession of a firearm, they should be at the point where they should be involuntarily committed.  I don't see a reason that you would view someone as a direct risk to harm others and a good idea to leave in society.

Temporary hold?  Sure, suicide risk, violence risk.  This is an area where I think we should expressly consider age and gender as well.  Short term holds on young men would go a long way to curbing violence.  But nothing here can be without the opportunity to promptly challenge.

Until there's a massive revolution in the U.S. in terms of mental health care and support I don't see how such dangerous people can be stopped from doing whatever they want unless they're stupid enough to make Youtube videos announcing their intentions.

I just find it interesting that the analysis seems to be that the right of the mentally ill to live without restriction in open society is viewed as more important than the rights of hundreds, if not thousands, of times more Americans to defend themselves.

Do you think that whatever system is used to ensure gun education (whether a school program, or a licensing program) should also be the same vehicle for early detection of maniacs?

The same class?  Not really.  The same system?  Of course, why wouldn't the school system take part?  The point of gun education - to me - is to reverse the insane and paralyzing fear that not understanding them engenders.  Bringing them into the schools, also serves to terminate the misguided and completely failed "gun free zone" policy.  I mean honestly, people on here claim to be data driven, can you show any evidence -at all- that this policy has had any positive safety impact?  At elementary schools?  At middle schools?

In theory we might suppose that a Hannibal Lecter type sociopath might be able to fool any program because he's disciplined and courteous, but in reality I think a lot of disturbed young people are very apparently disturbed to those around them. So would such a program have the authority to do something about it?

If we're positing an obvious sociopath, why shouldn't we have the ability to do something about it.

[TheDeamon]

So let me get this straight: I buy a gun. Then I sell it to you. Then you sell it 10 years later to your uncle, who gets burglarized and has it stolen. Then the burglar shoots someone. And I am fined $1,000,000?

I would not agree with this approach because it's *censored*ing stupid.

Which isn't to mention another issue. If I'm a business, and I sell guns, how exactly do I go about refusing to sell a gun to someone who is "a protected class" under the legal system that I don't feel comfortable about?

At least with the background check, that's on the Criminal Justice system, the gun shop doesn't have to worry about being sued into to ground for "discriminatory business practices" which trample upon said individuals "rights" under the law.

Unless you're saying I'm going to be held criminally liable for the obvious "gang-banger" committing crimes with a gun he purchased from me. And that further, I'm going to have my store shut down if I refuse to sell to said gang-banger because he's a minority.

Might as well just close my doors. No guns for anyone, as I'm screwed no matter what I do.

[Greg Davidson]

Thanks for all of you who understood I was not advocating for this extreme approach, just exploring whether there is a feasible path to a non-government regulated system of ownership.

I did see the one rationale for limiting gun regulation that I believe should be objected to everywhere and always regarding the United States: "Being armed is sometimes considered an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression"  I consider taking up arms against the United States to be treason, because someone who is using firearms to go after officers of the federal government pretty much fits within the category of "all enemies, foreign and domestic"

[Seriati]

Do you consider "resistance" to be treason?  Antifa?  What about sanctuary cities?  What about shooting "racist" cops?

Is it still treason to take up arms, if say, Trump sends federal troops into CA to secure their borders and to take control of sanctuary cities? 

[D.W.]

That's the funny thing about standing up against your own government.  By the time everyone agrees they need stopped, it's probably too late. 

Everyone's going to draw that line differently.  Knowing that, is why "baking it in" as raising the stakes of abuse by the government exists in the first place.  Is it still relevant or practical?  I really don't know.  To be honest, I'd probably be one of those who hands over my weapon if the government came demanding.  Then if things took a turn towards evil dictatorship, I'd have to rely on some "radical" at that point, because I found such a scenario so far fetched. 

But in the mean time, I'm all for keeping the means to protect myself from non-government threats.  So, in some ways I help protect the "radicals" and they help protect me.  And maybe all of us help protect our other rights...

But that theoretical protection comes with a cost.  I for one would prefer methods that keep more people safe without blowing off this theory as "crazy talk" by disturbed "gun nuts".

[Greg Davidson]

Do you consider "resistance" to be treason?  Antifa?  What about sanctuary cities?  What about shooting "racist" cops?

Is it still treason to take up arms, if say, Trump sends federal troops into CA to secure their borders and to take control of sanctuary cities?

If people take up arms against he federal government and say it is because of resistance, antifa, sanctuary cities, or shooting racist cops, that's treason. Same if it is due to Trump sending federal troops in. The appropriate response to the latter is to take it to court, not armed resistance.

Now, do you agree with me that if you use the rationale for gun ownership that it is to attack the federal government, that's rationale would be treasonous if you actually followed through

[Fenring]

Now, do you agree with me that if you use the rationale for gun ownership that it is to attack the federal government, that's rationale would be treasonous if you actually followed through

It seems to me that if you define any forceful resistance to the government as treason, then either you are saying that treason isn't necessarily a bad thing, or else you're saying that there is never any justification for resisting the government. I find both of those problematic propositions. I assume you veer towards the former, in which case...what's the point of calling the thing treason? Why not just call it - resistance? On the other hand if I assume that you are implicitly stating that treason is always wrong/bad, then you're saying that one must always obey government instructions no matter what?

[Seriati]

Do you consider "resistance" to be treason?  Antifa?  What about sanctuary cities?  What about shooting "racist" cops?

Is it still treason to take up arms, if say, Trump sends federal troops into CA to secure their borders and to take control of sanctuary cities?

If people take up arms against he federal government and say it is because of resistance, antifa, sanctuary cities, or shooting racist cops, that's treason.

That's a cop out.  I'm asking about those groups directly.  Is it treason to create a sanctuary city?  Would it be to direct your police force to interfere with ICE operations?

Is it treason for Antifa protesters to take up arms and harm government agents trying to protect another group's right to peaceably assemble?  Is it treason if Antifa "fights back" after the police use force to disburse them?

Is it treason for BLM members to shoot police officers or advocate it?  Or is it just murder?

Same if it is due to Trump sending federal troops in. The appropriate response to the latter is to take it to court, not armed resistance.

The appropriate response to an unconstitutional action or the actions of a dictator is to take them to court?  What if they ignore your court order, or better yet, just shut the court down "for its safety"?

Now, do you agree with me that if you use the rationale for gun ownership that it is to attack the federal government, that's rationale would be treasonous if you actually followed through

Sure, but that's one of the distinctions between attacking and defending.  You also seem to be ignoring that federal agents /= to the federal government as an inherent matter.  Those agents could, in some circumstances, be committing treason themselves - in which case you would be engaging in treason to facilitate them.

It never ceases to baffle me that in a world where freedom is already rare, against a history where its even less so, so many people seem to think they will never ever possibly need to defend their own, cause our government is "so good" and it could never happen here.  You know, of course, except when Trump's in charge, or Obama, then is the government is evil incarnate and they are an autocrat that can't be trusted.

Your Constitutional right to bear arms is derivative of you inherent right to defend yourself.  Nothing about the formation of a collective (ie a government) takes away that inherent right to defense.

[LetterRip]

Seriati,

That's a cop out.  I'm asking about those groups directly.  Is it treason to create a sanctuary city?  Would it be to direct your police force to interfere with ICE operations?

I think you don't understand what a sanctuary city is or how it works?  It is just cities where federal requests for holding people based on immigration status are ignored if the individual was arrested for a minor offense.  There is no obligation under federal law for city or state officials to do things at the behest of the federal law enforcement.  This has been the case since the founding of the country - city, state, and federal lawmen have never been required to cooperate except at the behest of their state governments.

[TheDrake]

A lot of people thought Obama did unconstitutional things - would people be justified in trying to kill him?

I think armed resistance is largely an obsolete idea. Modern militaries are simply too well equipped to get overthrown very easily unless there is a massive opposition. I also count on the fighting men and women in uniform to oppose our own government in such a situation, since they take their oath to the Constitution quite seriously.

We've seen dictators fall without heavily armed opposition during the Arab Spring, though the final verdict on the value of that is still out - there's no arguing that Gaddhafi is gone and so is Mubarak. South Africans are about the most perfect example of an oppressed population, and indeed they escalated to armed opposition before being successful.

I don't have a final answer on this. I see no problem recognizing the right of a people to armed opposition, but the line is hard to spot and the outcome far from certain. Such a scenario would be comprised of roadside bombs, sniper attacks, curfews, suspension of habeas corpus, martial law, and a general giant river of misery. I admit, I have a hard time thinking of a line where an oppression becomes so intolerable that such a world would be a better alternative than civil disobedience, mass protest, economic disruption, and other non-lethal methods.

[Seriati]

I think armed resistance is largely an obsolete idea. Modern militaries are simply too well equipped to get overthrown very easily unless there is a massive opposition.

So you are of the view that the US military can easily win battles with insurgents inside friendly cities?   They can't even do it in hostile ones easily.

How do you get them to indiscriminately kill US civilians, including their own family members?  The tech divide is big, but not big enough to account for the need to guard every single facility, every single government building and official, an endless stream of nationally important locations and facilities (like, for example the power grid).

Unless you intend some kind of saturation bombing, in which case the military junta is literally destroying its own resources.

It's nonsense to believe that a first world population couldn't resist its own military.  It's soft - unprovable - propaganda that doesn't get looked at too closely.

We've seen dictators fall without heavily armed opposition during the Arab Spring, though the final verdict on the value of that is still out - there's no arguing that Gaddhafi is gone and so is Mubarak.

Those aren't examples of unarmed success, they both had heavy outside and internal armed interference.

South Africans are about the most perfect example of an oppressed population, and indeed they escalated to armed opposition before being successful.

Not to mention massive international sanctions and pressure, and clear moral problem with white overlords and black subjects.  Hows that working in the rest of Africa where it's black on black?

Honestly, I think this is a somewhat silly point. The idea that having an armed citizenry hasn't massively contributed to our freedom is pure ivory tower thinking.  Where else has it arisen?  If you want to cite to the modern examples, they're heavily influenced by the Pax Americana.

[Greg Davidson]

Is it treason to create a sanctuary city?  Would it be to direct your police force to interfere with ICE operations?

Is it treason for Antifa protesters to take up arms and harm government agents trying to protect another group's right to peaceably assemble?  Is it treason if Antifa "fights back" after the police use force to disburse them?

Is it treason for BLM members to shoot police officers or advocate it?  Or is it just murder?

Failure to provide the additional assistance to the federal government as with a "Sanctuary City" is not treason. BLM members (or anyone else) advocating the shooting of police officers are horrible people but they are using their right to free speech.

Treason is an offense against the federal government.  If Antifa (or any other group) uses firearms to attack agents of the federal government, it is treason. If BLM or any group actually shoot police officers, the specific crime depends on the laws of the state or local government, but usually it is murder.

[Seriati]

Failure to provide the additional assistance to the federal government as with a "Sanctuary City" is not treason.

Our most famous traitors are generally spies.  Convicted because their actions lead to death or risk of death of - generally - our soldiers.  Would you charge the Mayor of San Francisco with Treason for issuing a warning of ICE raids that actively put the lives of Federal agents at risk by warning the criminals they were coming to arrest?

BLM members (or anyone else) advocating the shooting of police officers are horrible people but they are using their right to free speech.

Remind me again, are you one of those in the camp that thinks that hate speech is not free speech?  Cause I'd find that hard to reconcile with this point.  As a separate matter, call for someone's murder is not generally a reasonable exercise of speech.

Treason is an offense against the federal government.  If Antifa (or any other group) uses firearms to attack agents of the federal government, it is treason. If BLM or any group actually shoot police officers, the specific crime depends on the laws of the state or local government, but usually it is murder.

So if they kill an FBI agent or a US marshall it's treason in your book, but a cop, it's just murder?  It's simplistic test you're advocating there.

I'm not going to fall on a sword on this one.  It's a fair idea to believe that it's Treason to oppose any government, no matter how wrong or abusive the government is.  I suppose in your book, North Koreans are legitimate traitors if they oppose their own government for the betterment of their people.  I'd just be of the view that the higher moral standard requires it, and on the definition that you are proffering, treason is not objectively wrong and therefore the merits of your point about treason and  gun control become meaningless.

[Greg Davidson]

Would you charge the Mayor of San Francisco with Treason for issuing a warning of ICE raids that actively put the lives of Federal agents at risk by warning the criminals they were coming to arrest?

Actually, a good question. I totally oppose such behavior, and if the intention were to be able to kill federal agents, that is pretty serious. I am not sure that treason fits if the plan is not to overthrow the government, just as I am not sure that a bunch of survivalists exchanging gunfire with government agents is precisely the crime of treason (it is a crime, and a serious one, but the intent may not be to overthrow the federal government)

are you one of those in the camp that thinks that hate speech is not free speech?

Nope, I don't like the hate speech differentiation from free speech - it's all speech. Much more so than unlimited, unregulated campaign spending.

So if they kill an FBI agent or a US marshall it's treason in your book, but a cop, it's just murder?  It's simplistic test you're advocating there.

  If there's not a treason law in your state or locality, that does not exist as a criminal charge for attacks on your state and locality. In our lives as citizens of the United States under the Constitution, there is a crime known as treason.

[Seriati]

Sure Greg but we weren't really discussing treason, we were discussing gun control.  The point is if you define treason free from consideration of moral right and wrong then it really doesn't have a proper place in that debate.

[Greg Davidson]

Seriati, I didn't intendn to derail the whole conversation, I was just countering one argument in favor of gun ownership that I disagreed with:

I did see the one rationale for limiting gun regulation that I believe should be objected to everywhere and always regarding the United States: "Being armed is sometimes considered an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression"  I consider taking up arms against the United States to be treason, because someone who is using firearms to go after officers of the federal government pretty much fits within the category of "all enemies, foreign and domestic"

[Seriati]

Well do you acknowledge that your "counter" has no merit if you define Treason to include opposition to a tyrannical government?  You'd literally have to include the American Revolution in that definition of treason, and it's very clear we'd not be better off if that hadn't happened, or we hadn't been armed.

[Greg Davidson]

The Constitution is crystal clear that if you take up arms against the government of the United States of America, you are committing treason.  There is no special clause that permits this whenever someone feels that the government is tyrannical.
 

[D.W.]

Because this was the "nuclear option" before we had ever dreamed up nukes.  At that point, it is either a criminal act, a failed rebellion, or the start of a new government.  Why in the world would a special clause be required?  It means the system failed or was already subverted. 

It's not like they wrote in a "reset button" (again, I've got no period appropriate term) into the Constitution, and expected things to go back to it's pre-tyranny state and keep on chugging along as if nothing happened.

[Greg Davidson]

The system of laws that are based on the Constitution do not provide any legitimacy for individuals or groups who choose to use firearms to overthrow the Constitution.

The Constitution is the basis for government in the United States - the Oath of Office is to the Constitution, not to some apocalyptic Hollywood notion of an America that is independent of the rule of law or the Constitution. To think otherwise is an extremist fantasy and about as profoundly anti-American as you can get.

[Fenring]

Greg, at the time the constitution was drafted Jefferson believed the following:

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I don't know the context of this and I hope one day to learn a lot more about him, but I do not believe the modern notion that violence against government = insane treason was in the thoughts of the founders. I think they legitimately believed that any government can get out of control and must be curbed through violent uprising in certain circumstances. The lack of will to 'use force' is exactly what keeps tyrants in power. Nowadays I think force can include a lot of things other than violence and people aren't realizing this yet. But a massive shift in demands from the public would likely create change if it was important enough. The problem now is to get people motivated and in agreement about anything. I think this is one reason the partisan landscape is what it is; to avoid this ever happening.

[D.W.]

That said, I'd speculate they meant to prevent the rise of a dictator / king.  What happens when we democratically elect a tyrant class and rotate them out on the regular?  If it's self inflicted, is it "just" for the minority to rise up? 

[Greg Davidson]

I am familiar with that quote from Jefferson. But a quote from Jefferson does not provide any form of waiver to the Constitution of the United States. And this regard there is no ambiguity to the Constitution. 

The recourse for American citizens is supposed to be their votes. The greatest vulnerability of the Constitution is when one faction implements laws to disenfranchise other American citizens - in the post-Reconstruction South, the Democratic Party at the time created obstacles to Black citizens voting, and those very exclusions enabled them to keep that monopoly on power under federal regulation re-emerged in the 1960's.

[TheDeamon]

The system of laws that are based on the Constitution do not provide any legitimacy for individuals or groups who choose to use firearms to overthrow the Constitution.

The Constitution is the basis for government in the United States - the Oath of Office is to the Constitution, not to some apocalyptic Hollywood notion of an America that is independent of the rule of law or the Constitution. To think otherwise is an extremist fantasy and about as profoundly anti-American as you can get.

Except you're ignoring an important thing. The "Lineage" of the Nation itself, which includes the "pre-history" of the Constitution itself.

You're conveniently forgetting the Declaration of Independence in all of this. Many of the same people were involved in both documents. The Constitution hold supreme, until or unless the points brought forward in the DoI become relevant, at which point those that rebel are the ones "in the right" from the perspective of the Founders.

You need to remember these guys were aware of history, history told them(and us), that it is not a matter of if, but when the Constitution of the United States is subverted and the government, if not the document itself, runs astray. It is the story of practically every nation that has ever existed.

[Fenring]

I am familiar with that quote from Jefferson. But a quote from Jefferson does not provide any form of waiver to the Constitution of the United States. And this regard there is no ambiguity to the Constitution.

And what if the government itself is no longer adhering to the constitution? What you say is right - the constitution doesn't have provisions for ignoring it. How about provisions for defending it?