Is the Right to Shoot Firearms Protected by the 2nd Amendment?

[Char. Limit]

First, let me state the 2nd Amendment in full:

[QUOTE="The US Constitution]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/QUOTE]

Now, that gives us the right to bear arms. What gives us the right to shoot those arms?

 

[Jasongreat]

First, let me state the 2nd Amendment in full:



Now, that gives us the right to bear arms. What gives us the right to shoot those arms?

Are you saying that we have the right to own guns, but no right to use them? Are you serious with this topic?

 

[Char. Limit]

Are you saying that we have the right to own guns, but no right to use them? Are you serious with this topic?

I'm not saying we don't have the right. Obviously we do, or it would have been taken away. I'm asking where it is.

 

[Jasongreat]

I figure its implicit in the right to bear arms. What good is a right if we can't use it?

 

[Char. Limit]

Ah, I see. I was thinking it was implicit in the 10th amendment. Since it's not listed, we implicitly have it, right?

 

[Pengwuino]

I don't understand this question either. That's like saying you have the freedom of speech but you can't say anything.

 

[Jasongreat]

The tenth ammendment covers those rights not listed, wouldn't the right to bear arms mean we can use those arms we have a right to bear?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure we do have a right to use them in the same sense that we have a right to own them. For example, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the city, except in cases of self-defense [or at designated shooting ranges, if any exist], but your right to carry or own a weapon is still intact.

However, without having thought about it for more than a few seconds, my gut reaction would be to argue that "being necessary to the security of a free State", requires that a person have the right to practice and use a weapon as is necessary to be competent in using it.

On the other hand, I don't think we have a Constitutional right to hunt, for example.

 

[Jasongreat]

I'm not sure we do have a right to use them in the same sense that we have a right to own them. For example, it is illegal to discharge a firearm in the city, except in cases of self-defense, but your right to carry or own a weapon is still intact.

However, without having thought about it for more than a few seconds, my gut reaction would be to argue that "being necessary to the security of a free State", requires that a person have the right to practice and use a weapon as is necessary to be competent in using it.

On the other hand, I don't think we have a Constitutional right to hunt, for example.

We don't have a right to provide food for ourselves?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We don't have a right to provide food for ourselves?

It is already established that hunting practices can be controlled. At times, the hunting season is closed altogether.

You have a right to grow food and raise cattle, if you wish.

 

[Jasongreat]

It is already established that hunting practices can be controlled. At times, the hunting season is closed altogether.

You have a right to grow food and raise cattle, if you wish.

I also have the right to kill deer, elk, pheasant, geese, duck, grouse, chucker, rabbit, and on and on, when in season. I would also argue that I have the right to kill food when not in season if it is a mtter of life or death if I dont. Not everyone has to go to the market, or can go to the market for food.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It is legal to fire a gun (depending of course on where it is aimed at the time you fire it). What is the difference between being legally allowed to do something and having the right to do it? It seems like word play to me.

 

[russ_watters]

bear: "22. to have and use; exercise"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

I would consder it explicit.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm not sure we do have a right to use them in the same sense that we have a right to own them.

That's flawed logic: all rights have limits, naturally including the right to own them.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

bear: "22. to have and use; exercise"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bear

I would consder it explicit.

I considered that and looked it up but considered the argument too flimsy. In fact, many sources, including the Webster's 1828, do not include the word "use". And in your link it comes under the 22nd definition.

Do you have a source showing this is a legal definition?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's flawed logic: all rights have limits, naturally including the right to own them.

You quoted one sentence and responded to the other.

If I yell fire in a crowded theater, I put everyone in immediate jeopardy. If I'm shooting my gun in my basement, I put no one at risk, but it is still illegal in most cities. The two situations are clearly not equivalent.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I also have the right to kill deer, elk, pheasant, geese, duck, grouse, chucker, rabbit, and on and on, when in season. I would also argue that I have the right to kill food when not in season if it is a mtter of life or death if I dont. Not everyone has to go to the market, or can go to the market for food.

Where in the Constitution is that "right" expressed?

The fact that we have hunting seasons subject to closure shows that hunting is not a right. In fact, you have to pay for the privilege. And nowhere in the tag limits is the need for food considered.

By your logic, we could limit free speech to the months of September through January, and only for a finite number of words.

 

[drankin]

I'm with Ivan. Hunting is not a Constitutional right. It is fair game (doh) to complete regulation. And IS completely regulated. Not many situations in America to where someone can say that if he did not hunt he could not feed his family.

 

[russ_watters]

Locked upon request.