Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vo8y8 wrote

Reply to comment by ColdJay64 in Philadelphia juvenile street gang linked to thefts of nearly 100 firearms from Pennsylvania gun stores by TreeMac12

So by "current gun laws" you mean the 2nd amendment? You think all gun sales should be prohibited?

9

ColdJay64 t1_j5vqqgt wrote

The 2nd amendment is a right to have a gun for self-defense, it says nothing about anyone who sells firearms. I do think the majority of gun sales should be prohibited.

−5

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vr4xi wrote

You don't think the right to have a gun for self-defense would be curtailed if selling guns was unlawful?

16

ColdJay64 t1_j5vsrb8 wrote

It would be for sure, but maybe the 2nd amendment needs some updating too. As we are all aware it was written 250 years ago - with muskets in mind.

9

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vudpf wrote

Well then it would fail the undue burden standard. You can't just make it impossible for someone to exercise their rights and claim those rights still exist.

Anyway, it's fine if you think the 2nd Amendment needs to be updated, but it seems odd you'd say "current gun laws" as if this is a new thing or could be changed with ordinary state legislation. There is really nothing you can do beyond amending the constitution.

8

ColdJay64 t1_j5vvyor wrote

I am obviously not an expert but that’s debatable, it’s been ruled in multiple courts that the 2nd amendment does not extend protection to firearm sellers: https://harvardlawreview.org/2014/04/does-the-second-amendment-protect-firearms-commerce/

Hence why I referred to current gun laws, as my understanding was that changing state legislation could potentially have an impact here.

5

ONE_GUY_ONE_JAR t1_j5vyk2n wrote

This is true. But it doesn't extend to the point that gun sales could be prohibited. Gun dealers can be subject to more regulation because they aren't protected by the Second Amendment. But if they were so regulated that the were de facto prohibited, then that would be unconstitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undue_burden_standard

I don't think this has ever been tested, but I also don't think any state has ever tried to regulate gun stores so aggressively that they couldn't exist. If a state did I think it would be a virtual certainty that the Court (especially this Court) would strike it down as an undue burden on people exercising their 2nd Amendment rights.

It's also worth nothing that this article is discussing a split amongst different circuit courts regarding this issue (when different Federal Courts come to different conclusions about an issue). Thus, this issue is still up in the air and hasn't been settled by SCOTUS yet.

10

m16a t1_j5w1yjl wrote

The constitution gives the right to have an abortion for personal reasons, it says nothing about anyone providing them. I do think the majority of abortions should be prohibited.

Same energy. Rights are rights, don't compromise on any of them.

0

Little_Noodles t1_j5w8duk wrote

But even the most pro-choice advocates are in favor of regulating and requiring standards of abortion providers and medical centers to the ensure safety of patients.

Nobody is arguing that the bar for providing abortions (particularly surgical options), or for storing medicines and medical supplies, be as low as the current bar for opening a gun shop and storing inventory.

The analogy would be that gun shops should also be subject to rigorous standards to ensure safety, even if that means that fewer shops exist.

I’d agree that “we can legislate away guns by making it impossible to sell them” doesn’t pass muster.

But “stores that sell deadly weapons should be closely monitored and require a reasonable but high standard of care re: sales and inventory storage, even if it presents a burden” is not incompatible with pro-choice arguments.

If that opens the door to legislating them out of states and towns by creating unrealistic expectations solely to overburden existing enterprises, that’s on the right and their judges for opening that door and enshrining it as a precedent. Maybe they shouldn’t have done that.

−1