The left is still hammering the “collective rights” theory. This attorney thinks that SCOTUS got it wrong on the Heller decision.

Carrying their logic to its extreme, if there is no limitation on the right to own a gun, all 330 million citizens of the United States must be part of a “well regulated Militia.” Are you? I’m not.

Actually, you ARE a part of the militia, whether or not you know it. The militia is actually composed of two parts: The organized militia (the National Guard) and the unorganized militia, which is comprised of all male US citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. See 10USC246:

§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This so-called lawyer doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about, but that doesn’t stop him. He goes on:

No one would seriously argue you have the right to own a land mine or a nuclear-armed submarine.

Who says? The Second Amendment says “shall not be infringed,” and I believe that it DOES protect the right to own a nuclear armed submarine. Now, I am equally sure that many people would agree that citizens SHOULDN’T own a submarine armed with nuclear weapons. In that case, there is a process for changing that. It should not be difficult to get three quarters of the state legislatures and a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress to agree to add an Amendment to the Constitution that reads something along the lines of “No person shall be permitted to own a nuclear warhead.” I mean, the process is outlined right there in the paperwork.

What I can’t find in that Constitution is a clause that permits the government to ignore any clause which it, in its own judgment, finds inconvenient or irrelevant. That is EXACTLY what he argues, however:

The fundamental constitutional proposition many Republicans overlook is that no right is unlimited. That there is a limitation of our rights is fundamental to being civilized. So, for instance, the Supreme Court long ago held that your right to self-expression stops at the tip of the other guy’s nose. You have the right to own a car, but you don’t have the right to drive it at 100 mph through Downtown San Diego.

Of course no right is unlimited. He is just making a poor argument. No one has a right to own a car. There are all sorts of reasons why a person’s ability to own a car may be restricted, as any decent lawyer would know. I would also agree with him that a person doesn’t have the right to drive downtown at 100 miles per hour. A person does, however, have the right to own arms, to include firearms. What a person doesn’t have is the right to stand in the middle of a crowded street and fire that gun into a crowd, and no one is saying that they should, absent a legitimate exception like self defense.

If we are to allow the government to simply ignore the parts of the Constitution that they disagree with, then we can all agree that the founding documents of this nation are no longer relevant and are null and void. In that case, we might as well admit that might makes right, and we are a dictatorship after all.

If I lived in San Diego, I would not hire this moron as an attorney. He doesn’t seem very competent or knowledgeable.

Categories: Antigun


Therefore · June 6, 2022 at 6:31 am

Just one minor disagreement. There are lots of times when a person’s right to drive might be restricted but none that I know of that restricts their right of ownership.

A person that loses their license to drive can still keep their car. They can still drive their car on private property. They can hire others to drive them in a car they own. I’ve heard rumors of some powerful politicians that get driven everywhere and have let their drivers license expire.

It has always been a bad argument on their part to equate arms ownership to car ownership.

My daughter owned her first car before she had her license.

    Divemedic · June 6, 2022 at 7:28 am

    But there is no RIGHT to own a car.

      Therefore · June 6, 2022 at 8:25 am

      My error. The privilege to drive might be restricted, not the right to drive.

      I thought I was echoing your language, I did not.

        Divemedic · June 6, 2022 at 10:00 am

        I wasn’t clear with what I was saying. When I say that you don’t have the right to own a car, what I meant was that the government could pass a law banning all automobiles. There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that would make this unconstitutional.

    Steve S · June 6, 2022 at 8:31 am

    There is no right to own a car. Don’t pay your taxes and find out what property rights you have (none).

Toastrider · June 6, 2022 at 6:58 am

I think you could make the argument that under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, individuals are disallowed from owning nuclear weapons.

That being said, everything else should be on the board.

    Divemedic · June 6, 2022 at 7:29 am

    No treaty can have terms that violate the Constitution.

J. Smith · June 6, 2022 at 8:13 am

Not to be semantic but driving is a privilege, roads, taxes, licenses, etc… now it is a right to be able to travel. It becomes complicated because you cant walk from Florida to Texas without having to ostensibly walk on highways and interstates which is a crime, so in effect they have restricted your right to travel by providing the privilege of getting a license, paying fees, taxes, etc… and then being able to drive, as such a legal argument could be made because of the criminality of walking on roadways and other such things driving is a right, or otherwise they have taking your right to travel freely, unmolested on your way. Im not a lawyer just stretching the old logic legs.

J. Smith · June 6, 2022 at 8:35 am

I am all for expanding what the gov currently allows us to own. We have always played defense with our gun rights, we should be pushing for repeals of the 168, 1986 GCA’s. We should be working toward things not like, but such as those that Switzerland does with regards to weapons, ammo and explosives for defense. It gets complicated this isnt meant to go down a rabbit hole, but yeah we are sucking hind tit with regards to gov infringing on our rights to own many things. All these former military types, especially generals that have an elitist attitude that military and policeshould but citizens cant, classcism bullshit arguments infuriate me.
Recently, Rob O’neill the one who claims to have shot Bin Laden, pretty tough when he was dead years before the made for the movies raid in Pakistan happened, recently said “There Should Be Limits on ‘Shall Not Be Infringed”.

Many of the senior leaders at the pentagram I briefed on threats, like the protection directorate, provost marshal general, CSA when the military and Army were writing policy dealing with gun ownership and rights to carry for service members had very anti-2A, elitist attitudes about firearms. Changed my mind how i saw top brass. Go look at statements from McRaven, McChrystal, Petraeus, Milley, etc… all elitist, anti-2A proponents. These leaders are groomed, from academies, families, etc…these are not the rank and file. By the time most make LTC, they are chosen because they go along with the program, gender, race or pronoun, and get indoctrinated at the war college with all kinds of globalist belief structures. Had many a conversation with COLs Fresh from the war college, they didnt even understand basic civics as an American should, it was convoluted, globalist bs.

    BobF · June 6, 2022 at 2:12 pm

    Full career here — I knew decades ago that military senior leadership policies disallowed my keeping a gun in the bedroom of my on-base housing. As if the base cops are going to be better at PREVENTING a crime than their civilian counterparts. Yeah — trained and exhibiting self discipline 24/7, but not trusted to have a weapon to protect my family — got to have it in the armory so I can SIGN IT OUT.

    Cross the imaginary line onto the installation or the line x distance from a school and we become untrustworthy.

Kick Against · June 6, 2022 at 9:40 am

That collective comrades unity hive horseshit is so stale and tiresome.
Community is the big think thing locally and the utility company has some lame we’re all citizens commercial on the teevee.

D · June 6, 2022 at 9:54 am

“Of course no right is unlimited. He is just making a poor argument. No one has a right to own a car. There are all sorts of reasons why a person’s ability to own a car may be restricted”

I wholeheartedly disagree.

Let’s use the always popular “shouting fire in a crowded theater”.

Let’s say you go and shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater. And let’s pretend there *is* a fire. People might trample one another on their rush to get out, but you’re a “hero”. While some people may have been injured, you potentially saved a lot of lives.

Now let’s say you shout “FIRE!”…and there really isn’t a fire…
Some people might be injured in the ensuing chaos. You’re gonna be liable for the injuries as well as the loss of revenue to the theater, etc…you’ll probably even face a judge. The first time (depending on the extent of the injuries) the judge will probably fine you for the damages, and maybe you’ll get a warning…but you could also spend some time in jail.

Now what happens when you’ve paid your fines and you’re out of jail?

Are you physically capable of walking back into a crowded theater and falsely shouting “FIRE!”?


What happens if you do that?

Probably bigger fines, and probably longer jail terms.

You know what the government *doesn’t* do?

They don’t put an ice pick in your skill and scramble that section of brain that allows you to use the word “fire”.

When you’re released, you *could* do it all over again. More fines, more jail time, no ice pick.

The government doesn’t get to remove rights from you. Rights are part of who you are. They are part of being human.

If you aren’t in jail, you have the *right* to own a gun. You have the *right* to freely contract with someone who wants to sell you a car. You have the *right* to use the public roadway that you paid for by having your time/money forcibly extracted under the threat of being locked in a cage like a dog.

The government doesn’t get to arbitrarily decide what rights you have and the extent to which you are allowed to exercise them.

If you are harming others or damaging property, they can fine you and/or lock you away for a while. If you are an exigent threat to life, they (or any dutiful citizen) can use lethal force to stop you. That’s it.

Government doesn’t get magic extra-special powers except for the temporary ability to violate the freedom of movement (arrest and jail) to protect everyone up-to and during trials.

Speaking specifically about cars and roadways…why should the government be allowed to tell someone they can’t move freely about in the method they choose as long as they are harming others or preventing others from doing the same? And if they were harming others, why should government be allowed to permanently violate the right to travel freely as opposed to the long-established “temporary jailing, trial, and fine” system?

    Divemedic · June 6, 2022 at 9:59 am

    You are confusing the “ability” to do something with the “right” to do something. By your logic, I have the right to murder people. Sure, they can throw me in jail, but once I get out I can kill again. I can kill while in prison.

      D · June 6, 2022 at 11:16 am

      That’s not what I said at all.

      You don’t have the “right” to murder someone. You have the “ability” to violate their right to life.

      I got a speeding ticket a few years ago…and guess what…I got one last week too. Maybe government should have crushed my car into a cube, prevented me from working to feed my family, and basically forced me to find “alternative” ways of providing for them?

      But yes, if you murder someone (and don’t get killed while trying to do so), the government can and will jail you. And yes, you can get out and murder all over again.

      That poses a huge problem.

      Should the government be able to (arbitrarily) deprive people of their rights in exchange for “getting out early” or something? I.e. “supervised release”? Should the government be able to fuck with you for life because you committed some sort of infraction?

      Where’s the line?

      In my opinion, it’s real simple: When you are incarcerated, you are deprived on your freedom of movement. You can’t get out and speed, murder, or shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Once you have “paid your debt” to society, you are released. The government should have zero ability to restrict your rights–with the exception of supervised early release where you say something like “in exchange for service 1 year in prison and 5 years of supervised release, I am willing to temporarily give up my right to (travel by car, own a gun, hang out with known gang members, etc…)”.

      But the root of it is…if someone knocks over a BofA and kills someone, why on earth would government “release” them (thereby giving them their rights back) after serving 6 months, or a year, or whatever?

      While I typically loathe giving government more power to fsck with people, I think most people would agree that a murderer shouldn’t serve a year and then be released. Murder should carry a stiffer penalty.

      But instead, government plays this game of “we’ll release you super early, but we’re doing to do it in a way that helps us add more regulation and muddy the waters when it comes to violating your rights”.

Gregb · June 6, 2022 at 7:02 pm

We are now hearing about we should not be allowed to purchase or own weapons of war which is what these idiots are calling the AR15. What do they think the colonist used against the Brits or members of different groups during the (Un)Civil War?

BarrySoetero · June 6, 2022 at 7:37 pm

If you legalized owning nuclear weapons, only billionaires would have nuclear weapons. That’s scary to think about.

Then again, billionaires now have missiles of their own. Elon Musk has no nukes, but he has the delivery systems. He could even develop his own non-nuke weapons, like Rods from God, and threaten the world like some Bond villain at this point.

What limits are there to stop him, Branson, or Bezos from putting anti-satellite weapons, tungsten rods, or just 300lb anvils in space and using them against us?

Chris · June 6, 2022 at 9:14 pm

This was a long post, I decided against that sort of Honesty, just to easy to be mos-construed or mis-read….

I will say….

I’m done argueing about anything anymore.

Comments are closed.