Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: another legal question. Why is operating a motor vehicle a privilege and operating a gun a right? [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)10. We have the "right to travel" (an unenumerated right protected by the ninth)
And a right to own property (English common law, also protected by the ninth, fourth, and fifth).
We don't have a specific right to operate a motor vehicle on public roads.
You have a right to drive a car in your back field until the wheels fall off. Lots of "farm vehicles" are driven by teenagers without licenses or insurance, or heck even registration.
It's when you get out onto public roads that you turn from a right to a privilege.
eta: hit submit instead of preview..
As far as guns, the right to arms pre-dates the constitution, but having an explicit protection helps.
From US v Cruikshank (1876)-
The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government... It is found wherever civilization exists. It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection...
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."
...
The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called..."internal police."
Obviously, the line about Congress isn't true anymore in light of the 14th amendment and the doctrine of 'select incorporation', but the core stands.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
31 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
another legal question. Why is operating a motor vehicle a privilege and operating a gun a right? [View all]
srican69
Dec 2012
OP
I always have had the faith that law, in the long run, is fair and impartial ...
srican69
Dec 2012
#5
It has only been interpreted that way for 4 years. If you throw you lot with Scalia, Thomas, Alito,
byeya
Dec 2012
#14
Even if one concedes that it is an individual right though it does not mean no regulation.
yellowcanine
Dec 2012
#19
The right to self-defense ranks at or near the top of natural rights. Arms are effective tools for
jody
Dec 2012
#8
Prior to 2008 it was perfectly legit for a jurisdiction to ban handguns. In 2008, the Filthy Five of
byeya
Dec 2012
#12
The 4 minority justices recognized the right, citing PA & VT constitutions but held the 2nd was not
jody
Dec 2012
#15
translation please ... I have a PhD in systems engineering but somehow its not helping
srican69
Dec 2012
#16
Your posts suggest you have not read the Heller opinion and dissent. I would give you a link but in
jody
Dec 2012
#28
In 1981 Morton Grove. IL. banned the ownership of handguns and on appeal the appeals
byeya
Dec 2012
#22