2nd Amendment Case - SAF Brief + Hunting

SAF has filed a brief in the seminal case D.C. v. Heller .

While it is impossible to predict the outcome of a Supreme Court Case, it is likely that the 2nd Amendment will be read to confer an individual right to bear arms for self-defense purposes. (also property and the lives of others in specific cases)

This would not, as some hyperbolic commentators suggest, negate all gun laws. It would simply require them to withstand a higher level of scrutiny. I've already stated my agreement with this reading of the constitution.

Came across an interesting issue .... This question is off the cuff, I'm trying to synthesize an overall theory.

1. The 2nd Amendment confers no right to hunt non-human animals.

2. Family Farmers are adversely affected by this practice. I believe it possible to limit both hunting and the use of "factory farms" to aid this ailing industry. I do not oppose eating meat or wearing leather as a matter of law. I believe it should be done in a balanced manner. Humane practices of family farmers should be rewarded (possibly via tax credits and subsidies) whilst subsidies to "factory farms" should be eliminated.

3. I see no moral justification for hunting except when it is absolutely necessary for food. (Self-defense would apply to animals obviously)

4. Thus RKBA applies only to self-defense. I believe in an individual right to own firearms. I do not believe they may be used for just any purpose, however. Other practices should require a higher level of scrutiny.

Any thoughts on this?

JT

While I disagree with sport hunting 100%, I don't see much justification is being against hunting and supporting animal farms/slaughter houses. Given the options I'd rather people become intimately connected to the animal they're about to eat as opposed to the completely anoynmous slaughter/package and served up in a unidentifiable mass that we seem to favor today.

There just is really no reason for the majority of us to eat meat now a days. If you're a native american in the artic then yes you need to hunt seal/fish/whales because you can't grow any crops. I can also see for the very poor who are unable to afford protein filled foods like nuts, soy etc. However if you use India for example. We have a country of over a billion people who for the most part are vegetarian and they do great.

But hey..back to guns.

I fully support a persons right to own a firearm. I do agree though that stricter rules are necessary. A psychological evaluation at the very least. There needs to be a limit however to the amount of enforcement placed on people. Criminals don't buy their guns from Jacks Gun Shop. They get them from other criminals. Making it more difficult for law abiding people to own guns makes it alot easier for them to be defenseless.

Plus as tinfoil hat as it sounds. Nations that have had very strict gun laws have had a history of crimes against their citizens. Russias ban of guns to civillians lead to mass killings of un-armed civillians, Chinas intense gun control makes it very easy for them to execute over 10,000 people a year. Japans ancient weapon control were all metal weapons were confiscated lead to stability, but also lead to rule by a tyrant.

Allowing civillians to own guns helps keep the distinction between a people who vote in their leaders and a nation dominated by their leaders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velvet-Tongue

While I disagree with sport hunting 100%, I don't see much justification is being against hunting and supporting animal farms/slaughter houses. Given the options I'd rather people become intimately connected to the animal they're about to eat as opposed to the completely anoynmous slaughter/package and served up in a unidentifiable mass that we seem to favor today.

There just is really no reason for the majority of us to eat meat now a days. If you're a native american in the artic then yes you need to hunt seal/fish/whales because you can't grow any crops. I can also see for the very poor who are unable to afford protein filled foods like nuts, soy etc. However if you use India for example. We have a country of over a billion people who for the most part are vegetarian and they do great.

But hey..back to guns.

I fully support a persons right to own a firearm. I do agree though that stricter rules are necessary. A psychological evaluation at the very least. There needs to be a limit however to the amount of enforcement placed on people. Criminals don't buy their guns from Jacks Gun Shop. They get them from other criminals. Making it more difficult for law abiding people to own guns makes it alot easier for them to be defenseless.

Plus as tinfoil hat as it sounds. Nations that have had very strict gun laws have had a history of crimes against their citizens. Russias ban of guns to civillians lead to mass killings of un-armed civillians, Chinas intense gun control makes it very easy for them to execute over 10,000 people a year. Japans ancient weapon control were all metal weapons were confiscated lead to stability, but also lead to rule by a tyrant.

Allowing civillians to own guns helps keep the distinction between a people who vote in their leaders and a nation dominated by their leaders.

---

Was thinking more of humane farming methods. I do see your point though.

J

I hear a lot of people talking about how thier guns are neccesary to keep the government from controlling thier lives (except ironically when it comes to the government allowing (sic) them to have guns, then they are cool with letting the governent tell them what they can and can't do with them.) But assuming that they really do believe that, when exactly are they going to do something about it? Americans have owned guns since the birth of this nation and it's never once did jack shit to prevent the government from excersizing it's will against major public (philosophical) opposition. remember that time when americans used guns to keep the nation from enslaving thousands of black people, massacring indians, breaking up strikes, putting japanese in concentration camps, forcing college kids to go to war, seizing people's houses? Yeah, Me either.

on the general subject of guns, I guess I have mixed feelings, as some of you may know from our many previous gun discussions. I think that guns should be illegal and we should have a de-armed and de-militarized society. I am also against gun control.

that's not really a contradiction. You're absolutley right that gun control only hurts legitimate gun owners. You can get an uzi on the black market, but I (the law-abiding citizen going through the proper channels) cannot. And still most people are killed by registered, legal weapons in the home. So what's the fucking point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

on the general subject of guns, I guess I have mixed feelings, as some of you may know from our many previous gun discussions. I think that guns should be illegal and we should have a de-armed and de-militarized society. I am also against gun control.

that's not really a contradiction. You're absolutley right that gun control only hurts legitimate gun owners. You can get an uzi on the black market, but I (the law-abiding citizen going through the proper channels) cannot. And still most people are killed by registered, legal weapons in the home. So what's the fucking point?

---

I see where you're coming from actually. I can respect it. Just on a constitutional level, I think it relates to self-defense. I am hoping a bunch of jokers don't try to have state hunting laws negated through some odd RKBA argument. I generally find hunting to be silly and unnecessary. The states should be able to restrict it to their heart's content.

Thanks.

JT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

on the general subject of guns, I guess I have mixed feelings, as some of you may know from our many previous gun discussions. I think that guns should be illegal and we should have a de-armed and de-militarized society. I am also against gun control.

that's not really a contradiction. You're absolutley right that gun control only hurts legitimate gun owners. You can get an uzi on the black market, but I (the law-abiding citizen going through the proper channels) cannot. And still most people are killed by registered, legal weapons in the home. So what's the fucking point?

---

So guns should be illegal and we should be a de-armed, de-militarized society but you're against laws that restrict guns. Brilliant!

Most gun killings are done in the home by legal weapons. Thats the users fault not the guns or the laws. If someone decided to blow dry their hair in the bathtub and ends up electrocuting themselves we blame them for bringing a blowdryer into the tub.

Just because some people become complacent with gun safety and end up shooting themselves does not mean we should remove the right for an entire country to protect itself.

Also:

"I hear a lot of people talking about how thier guns are neccesary to keep the government from controlling thier lives (except ironically when it comes to the government allowing (sic) them to have guns, then they are cool with letting the governent tell them what they can and can't do with them.) But assuming that they really do believe that, when exactly are they going to do something about it?"

We do as much as we can while still following the laws of the country. Thats why you vote in candidates who support your personal views on gun control, fight laws that restrict them etc. Thats about as much as I can accomplish as a single American.

None of the laws have been extreme enough to cause a huge nation-wide protest. Californias laws being the most restrictive simply limit the use of assault weapons, the types of grips, and gun add-ons like flash hiders.

education and controll.

banning arms just pushes more onto ilicit markets. the UK is a good case in point of this

too much of a pain in the ass to buy a gun up here.....unless your gonna do it illegaly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velvet-Tongue

So guns should be illegal and we should be a de-armed, de-militarized society but you're against laws that restrict guns. Brilliant!

---

Yes, I do support those things. Part of the reason is because I think that a society that is open about arms distribution invariabley leads to weapon proliferation. A hand gun is not a deterant, the "bad guys" will just get kevler and m-16's. It's the recognition of that fact that makes me take that position because my goal is toward a society with less gun casualties. Having the available firepower to adequetly deal with those that are using guns for criminal actions is not contradictory to that statement. And especially if you want to cite the tyranical defense argumenet, if the military has hardware that is so far advanced than the populace, they might as well not be armed at all, for all the good it will do. I think that it's still more dangerous than abolishing guns, but less dangerous than our current gun control laws.

Quote:

---

Most gun killings are done in the home by legal weapons.

---

that's what I said. I don't really see how that is a good argument to help the pro-gun campaign.

Also most of the weapons that end up on the black market come from previous legal distribution. That's why the illegal gun use in england (which subsequently is all the gun use) is less than the illegal gun use in america, and they aren't using automatic weapons either.

Quote:

---

Thats the users fault not the guns or the laws. If someone decided to blow dry their hair in the bathtub and ends up electrocuting themselves we blame them for bringing a blowdryer into the tub.

---

So you'd be opposed to virus testing in food? after all, it's your own fault for choosing to take the risk. It's a socities job to pass laws to make things safer for the population. Hey, I'm all for chaos and anarchy, but I don't think that's what you are trying to go for, brother. If we have to have rules and regulations, lets have one's that actually do something worthwhile.

Quote:

---

We do as much as we can while still following the laws of the country. Thats why you vote in candidates who support your personal views on gun control, fight laws that restrict them etc. Thats about as much as I can accomplish as a single American.

---

so if you're going to leave it up to the ballot box and the pen and the government to do everything for you, why do you need a gun?

My sense is it will primarily be outright gun bans that are struck down. You can read more on other city suits at: http://www.saf.org.

JT

I see hunting as being far more humane than farming. An animal that's killed by a hunter, in the wild, got to live a natural and free life before being taken down by a predator (the hunter), as was almost certainly going to be its lot anyway.

In contrast, an animal on a factory farm leads an extremely painful, unhealthy and limited life. Even on a small, family farm, the image of happy pigs and goats cavorting in a field is far more idyllic than what's usually actually going on. For the most part, these animals still live in pens and have a very limited existence. Don't get me wrong, family farming is awesome, but I still think that an animal in its natural habitat that gets killed by a hunter (whether for food or for its skin/antlers/whatever) gets to lead a life far more in tune with how it evolved.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by batzilla

I see hunting as being far more humane than farming. An animal that's killed by a hunter, in the wild, got to live a natural and free life before being taken down by a predator (the hunter), as was almost certainly going to be its lot anyway.

In contrast, an animal on a factory farm leads an extremely painful, unhealthy and limited life. Even on a small, family farm, the image of happy pigs and goats cavorting in a field is far more idyllic than what's usually actually going on. For the most part, these animals still live in pens and have a very limited existence. Don't get me wrong, family farming is awesome, but I still think that an animal in its natural habitat that gets killed by a hunter (whether for food or for its skin/antlers/whatever) gets to lead a life far more in tune with how it evolved.

---

As I stated, I am opposed to factory farming. My views are more in line with http://www.hfa.org when it comes to the family farm. I do understand the point you are making, however.

JT

I forgot to mention: Animals used for food and clothing are often those which cannot survive in the wild (cattle, pigs, chickens) I am operating under the assumption that people will continue to use these animals for said purposes.

I am more focused on reconciling RKBA and state laws concerning both guns and hunting.

JT

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Morning Glory

Yes, I do support those things. Part of the reason is because I think that a society that is open about arms distribution invariabley leads to weapon proliferation. A hand gun is not a deterant, the "bad guys" will just get kevler and m-16's. It's the recognition of that fact that makes me take that position because my goal is toward a society with less gun casualties. Having the available firepower to adequetly deal with those that are using guns for criminal actions is not contradictory to that statement. And especially if you want to cite the tyranical defense argumenet, if the military has hardware that is so far advanced than the populace, they might as well not be armed at all, for all the good it will do. I think that it's still more dangerous than abolishing guns, but less dangerous than our current gun control laws.


that's what I said. I don't really see how that is a good argument to help the pro-gun campaign.

Also most of the weapons that end up on the black market come from previous legal distribution. That's why the illegal gun use in england (which subsequently is all the gun use) is less than the illegal gun use in america, and they aren't using automatic weapons either.



So you'd be opposed to virus testing in food? after all, it's your own fault for choosing to take the risk. It's a socities job to pass laws to make things safer for the population. Hey, I'm all for chaos and anarchy, but I don't think that's what you are trying to go for, brother. If we have to have rules and regulations, lets have one's that actually do something worthwhile.



so if you're going to leave it up to the ballot box and the pen and the government to do everything for you, why do you need a gun?

---

I agreed with you that most gun deaths happen in the home to point out its not the gun laws fault. Its user error.

The average criminal is not going to bust down SWAT style into your home with a bullet proof vest and machine gun. If they did that would be another reason on why owning a firearm would be a good thing.

I don't see how virus testing of food relates to gun control. Virus testing happens because of regulations on food. If someone bought a big pile of food and let it sit in the sun for 2 days before eating. Then yeah its their fault they're sick/dead. The same way if someone buys a gun, forgets to check to see if its loaded then shoots themselves in the face. Its their own fault not the guns or the laws.

As far as the government/laws deal. Yeah I have to rely on officials I vote for to help protect the rights I value. I'm not gonna gonna storm the whitehouse with a bunch of fanatics because of gun control. You have to work within the law unless you desire sitting in jail forever.

If our society was not already flooded to the brim with guns I'd be much more in favor of extremely strict gun rules/regulations. As it stands though its already so easy to get the guns that restricting them is just going to hurt law abiding people.

I am great white hunter myself.. These game ranches, you still have to track and hunt them They are still wild animals. I rather like using High powered rifles, but I can see the stand point. Hunting them like true hunters, using the old skills ect ect..

some saying go or bumper stickers, You are a Citizen with gun, Without a gun you are Peasant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Velvet-Tongue

I don't see how virus testing of food relates to gun control.

---

my point there is that a gun is an inherantly dangerous thing, by it's own design and it's practical purpose is to injure or kill. yes, in the hands of someone intent to do harm anything can be a weapon. But 'guns don't kill people'...what do they do? Isn't that really the ONLY thing that they do do, kill people?

of course that can and should be mitigated by having trained and qualified people dealing with them, but the arguement is that guns are dangerous and by eliminating all mechanics from the issue and just chocking it up to human emotions seems to be an attempt to subvert that fact.

a gun is only safe if it is dealt with safely, just like any other potentially dangerous thing. so I don't assert that it is soley a someone's fault and responsibility when they are ill effected by something dangerous.

In places where there are very few firearms, like Britain, you see far more home invasions. Being as the criminals there manage to have firearms still, I don't think banning them is the way to go. Hell, in far flung places of the world, like the mountains of Afghanistan, small villages make guns.

Also, personally, I don't see a problem with hunting as long as the animal is put to use (read: the meat gets eaten).

While I think that any hunting for sport (which I define as any hunting that is not a primary food source) is cruel, as like as they do use the animal as a food source (and not just as a trophy) the it is certainly no worse than factory farming.

As I have said before I'm pretty OK with hunting as a primary source of food. ( Being a vegetarian myself, I'm not sure how it compares to vegetarianism... I suppose i'd have to look at other factors in the persons lifestyle to make a judgement on which is better. Which I'm not really about doing, just if someone happens to want to know my opinion.)

On the real subject though, I don't think that hunting is constitutionally protected. Not neccesarily that it should be illegal, but in fairness the second ammendment doesn't make specific mention of it, nor does it really outline much in terms of what kind of use firearms should be put towards. Like most of the ammendments it's more about what the government can NOT prohibit, instead of what it can and does allow for. It sort of just makes mention of the things that are important, that we definatly want to do, and then leaves it up to the system to work out all the other things that we might want.