Personally, I think gun companies should be liable for any harm done by their products as well.
We want rule-of-law, and in the US, people should have an absolute right to bare arms, as in the second amendment. Free market forces can then determine appropriate prices, insurance, and protective measures to make sure those guns are managed safely.
If I want an F35 and an Abrams, that's okay, so long as Lockheed and General Dynamics are willing to sign off (with full liability for damages) that I'm managing them safely.
Free markets work pretty well with:
a) Full transparency, as needed for rational decision-making
A bit of a tangent, but I never understood the legal reasoning for how (states having the right of well-regulated militias) implies (individuals having the right for private ownership of arms).
"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."
1. The reason is well-regulated militias, but the right is of the people.
2. The militia isn't a state apparatus. Indeed, the goal of the militia is to enable a rebellion if the state is no longer free.
Now, here again, "well regulated" gives plenty of leeway. For example, one might argue that the following scheme fits:
1. I can have whatever arms I want, including an F35
2. The F35 lives with a militia, which is well-regulated. I can use it in trainings there.
I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control (that defeats the purpose!), but one could easily argue that it could be well-enough regulated that the current far-right extremist groups would not fit.
The concept was a group of citizens under e.g. a town / city council.
That's obviously not where case law went, but in an alternative reality, it very well might have.
"I don't think one could argue the militia could be under state control"
I'm not certain this is true at all. To suggest that the Founders meant for state militias to simply be their own forces with no control by the federal government is in direct conflict with the Articles of the US Constitution.
The US Constitution clearly outlines the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia. The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia. That was further codified in a handful of acts in the 1790s, upheld by the Supreme Court in the early 1800s. The US Constitution also makes mention of the militia in the 5th Amendment.
Early writing at that time suggests that the reason some of the Founders supported state militias was because they were very reluctant to allow the US to maintain a standing army. The US Industry Military Complex was never intended by the Founders.
Today we identify the militia described in the US Constitution as the US Army Reserves. However that came about only after the passage of the Dick Act of 1903 (yes, that's actually the name) because President (Teddy) Roosevelt was upset at the state of the militias during the Spanish American War of 1898. And the Dick Act actually split the idea of a militia into 'organized' and 'unorganized'.
Interesting comment. I am researching this in more depth as a result. Thank you.
Two nits, or slight overstatements:
> The US Constitution also clearly identifies the President as Command in Chief of the militia
Is not quite true. He is the commander of the army and navy. For the militia, the exact text is:
"of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
The second part is important. The militias are normally independent of the president. However, they can be called into service of the president.
> the powers of Congress to call forth & organize the militia
This is power shared with the states, in a relatively complex and ill-defined way:
"reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress"
But yes, the goal was largely to prevent something akin to the military-industrial complex.
My general read was to vest power federally, when being used in accordance with rule-of-law, but to put in power structures where the members and officers of the militia would ultimately be loyal to the people / the states. E.g. make rebellion easy if used beyond the scope of the Constitution.
3. the militia is supposed to be under state control and its purpose is to keep the state free, aka prevent overreach of the federal government
4. The "well regulated militia" is the motivation, not the right. That makes the "well regulated" part irrelevant and there is no basis for any regulation of arms
One would mean any effective state milita should have some F35, the other means you can have one personally
Its not just implying the right is for the people, it's directly stated. It's "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". It doesn't say "the right of the militias" to keep and bear arms".
For example, the 1st Amendment does not attempt to lay out some non-exclusive examples of why the rights in the 1st Amendment are included. So why did the Founders include this in the Amendment wording?
I think ignoring phrases in the US Constitution to fit a narrative without any consideration isn't a recipe for good governance. But I'm happy to be proven wrong.
> I think ignoring phrases in the US Constitution to fit a narrative without any consideration isn't a recipe for good governance
Like those who ignore "the right of the people"? Or is it OK to ignore that phrase? Seems like a pretty critical part to ignore.
I'm not one to ignore the significance of the "well-regulated militia" part, it's also a good point to understand the meaning of what this meant. It seems the whole point of people being armed was to ensure there was an armed populace able to rally as a useful and well-equipped (as a more historical reading of "well-regulated" would say) militia. The militia not being a standing army by a central government, but the ability for the people to come together effectively.
One could make an argument it's no longer relevant compared to modern technology. After all, what's an AR-15 going to do compared to a predator drone, a tomahawk missile, an Abrams tank, etc. But in this age where cheap drones are making multi-billion dollar warships worthless and things like cryptography and AI being considered a munition it seems more relevant than ever.
We want rule-of-law, and in the US, people should have an absolute right to bare arms, as in the second amendment. Free market forces can then determine appropriate prices, insurance, and protective measures to make sure those guns are managed safely.
If I want an F35 and an Abrams, that's okay, so long as Lockheed and General Dynamics are willing to sign off (with full liability for damages) that I'm managing them safely.
Free markets work pretty well with:
a) Full transparency, as needed for rational decision-making
b) No way to externalize costs