NYC Councilman Shot and Killed By Political Rival

[CO Liberal]

What's that line the pro-gunners always use about how we don't have to fear people with concealed weapons? - Wayne

* * * * * * * * * *

Gunman, accompanied by victim, bypassed metal detector

NEW YORK (CNN) -- In a crime that sent shock waves across New York City, a political rival of City Councilman James E. Davis opened fire in the chamber's balcony, killing Davis just minutes after the two had entered City Hall together, authorities said.

The gunman, Othniel Askew, 31, was shot and killed by a plainclothes officer who was on the council speaker's security detail.

"It's a very sad day for New York," Mayor Michael Bloomberg told reporters. "It is a great tragedy."

Bloomberg said Davis -- a 41-year-old former police officer known as a crusader against urban violence -- and Askew had entered through the west entrance at 1:44 p.m. EDT.

The two did not pass through a metal detector, which is not unusual for elected officials, apparently allowing Askew to slip his silver .40-caliber Smith & Wesson handgun into the council chamber undetected, along with an extra four bullets in his socks.

<more>

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/Northeast/07/23/ny.shooting/index.html

[slackmaster]

1. That's not my line

My line is that laws requiring issuance of concealed-carry permits to any qualified (no criminal record, etc.) adult who can meet some standards (safety course, shooting test, fee, etc. TBD by the issuing state) do not put the public at a greater state of danger than they are when the state either does not issue permits or uses a discretionary issue system.

I have not seen any report indicating that Mr. Askew had a valid NYC carry permit. Askew was in unlawful possession of the gun, therefore he was a criminal even before he pulled the trigger. Criminals who are bent on committing murder or mayhem with a gun are going to obtain and carry one no matter what the law says.

[CO Liberal]

5. From The Article

Emphasis mine.

Cheni Yerushalmi, who worked on his city council campaign, said Askew was running for office because he wanted "to make things better for the underdog. He was an upstanding guy."

Yerushalmi said Askew did have a license to own a gun.

"I can't believe this. I'm shocked," Yerushalmi said.

Asked whether Askew had a history of violence, Yerushalmi said, "He's not violent. He gets angry; we all get angry. But he's never been violent in terms of rage. He's never been violent towards me."

Care to tell me again why those of us who favor reasonable gun control measures have no reason to fear licensed gun owners?

[JayS]

8. Did he have a license to own or a license to carry? n/t

.

[CO Liberal]

9. The Article Didn't Say

I'll see what I can find in Google's news section.

ON EDIT - The stories I found on Google didn't shed any more light on this subject. We'll have to see what comes out in the days ahead.

[slackmaster]

10. Thanks

If it was a licence to carry (as opposed to simply own a handgun) he abused it to carry out a murder. He abused his political connections to get around security checks. This was not a random act.

[MrBenchley]

2. Davis was a retired cop

who had a carry permit...and it didn't do him a bit of good.

Meanwhile, his murderer had no problem getting an illegal gun, thanks to the corrupt GOP and the gun lobby.

[kubi]

3. Esp did him no good since

he allowed his killer to bypass a security check.

[slackmaster]

4. Davis' permit didn't do anyone any harm, either

n/t

[MrBenchley]

24. If that's all gun nuts want

carry a photograph of a gun in your pocket....no permit needed and it does no harm.

[Emoto]

6. Never trust a politician

.

[CO Liberal]

7. Especially One With a Smith & Wesson

And four extra bullets in his sock.......

[Emoto]

11. That was weird, wasn't it?

Why in his sock?

Oh, and this from the New York Times:

"While the gun had been legally purchased out of state, Mr. Askew did not have a permit for it in New York, law enforcement officials said last night."

Something is fishy here. You CANNOT legally purchase a handgun in a state other than where you live. Did Askew purchase it, or get it from someone else? It is also illegal to buy a handgun from a private individual in another state.

In NYC, I believe (does anyone know for sure?) that one cannot even possess a handgun in the home without a permit, and people tell me that you cannot get a permit unless you are wealthy or otherwise connected.

So, here we have a city with some of the strictest gun control in the nation, and it still happens.

Thank goodness that another armed individual was able to put an end to it.


On edit: WHAT AN ASSHOLE BLOOMBERG IS (in my opinion)

""I've had some very tough days in my life and some tough days in City Hall, but I don't think I've ever had as tough a day in 61 years as today," Mr. Bloomberg said later in the afternoon. "Somebody who was an elected official in the city of New York has been killed, and they've been killed right here in City Hall."

He cares more about another politician than he does the thousands who died on 9/11??? What a dickhead. Typical politician.

[slackmaster]

12. There was nothing left to put an end to

It appears this was a simple murder, not someone running amok.

[CO Liberal]

13. In Bloomberg's Defense.....

He was not mayor on 9/11 - Rudy Giuliani was. Yesterdays' events probably had more of an effect on him because they happened just down the hall from his office, and the man killed was obviously someone he knew.

[Emoto]

23. point taken

About Rudy G being mayor then. But, still, it seems shallow to me. He's saying that 9/11 was a better day than this one, for him. I won't belabor the thought that 9/11 should be the worst day for almost all americans in a long, long time, it is OT anyway...

[MrBenchley]

14. Dupe

What the hell?

[MrBenchley]

15. Nothing at all fishy about it

The thug probably strolled into a gun show in another state and bought it through the gun show loophole...

[slackmaster]

21. There is no gun show loophole

It's illegal to buy a handgun in a state other than your state of residence.

[MrBenchley]

22. Yeah, surrrrrrre....

THAT must be why the gun lobby spends millions each year keeping it open.

[slackmaster]

25. Please cite the law where an exception is made for gun show sales

You know, wording to the effect that the prohibition against a non-FFL buying a gun across state lines "...shall not apply at gun shows".

While you're at it, please find a definition of "gun show" under federal law, or that of any state law within reasonable travel distance of New York.

And for extra credit, please cite an authority under the Constitution or federal law under which the federal government would have the power to regulate private transfers of personal property.

[MrBenchley]

27. Peddle it to somebody dumb enough to swallow

He could have walked into a gun show in Virginia or Delaware (or any of 30 other states), for example, and avoided any background check whatsoever...

[slackmaster]

29. And that would be LEGAL?

Is anyone here ignorant enough to believe that?

[MrBenchley]

33. Spin spin spin

But the gun show loophole arms people who shouldn't have guns EVERY day in 32 states.

[Terran]

34. Just jumping in and out of this discussion...

As a Moderator, I'm going to decline to state my general position on gun control, but in the interest of accuracy, even I know there's such a thing as the "gun show loophole". Here a link with some information (and yes, it's a press release):

http://w3.agsfoundation.com/press_041901.html

Before I get flamed, let me just point out:

--the press release at this link is two years old--a good opportunity for anyone *seriously* interested in debating this matter to research what the current state of the gun show loophole is;

--Many of you probably won't care for Americans for Gun Safety, but I would point out that their website specifically states:

"The Americans for Gun Safety Foundation, a project of the Tides Center, a Section 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, seeks to educate Americans on existing gun laws and new policy options for reducing access to guns by criminals and children and to promote responsible gun ownership. The AGS Foundation supports the rights of individuals to own firearms."

At least on the surface, their mission sounds like something you ALL can agree on, correct?

Dirk

[Set]

35. would you care to explain the difference....

between the "gun show loophole" and the law that applies outside of gunshows?

Dealers at gunshows and outside of gunshows must conduct background checks, regardless of the location of the sale. Private individuals (people who don't meet the legal definition of "dealers") can sell guns without conducting background checks, both at gunshows and outside of gunshows. If a private individual is "dealing" in guns, they must have a FFL. "Dealing" in firearms without a FFL is a felony.


Edit: I looked at the AGS website, and I don't agree with them on a great many things. They are pushing for more firearms regulations. I think there are probably a fair number of people here who also disagree with them.

[Terran]

38. My understanding is

(and I admit that this not my area of expertise AT ALL) that non-dealers (private individuals) who sell at gun shows are in effect taking advantage of the *public* environment and the network that gun shows off to do their business without having to be licensed to conduct that business; IMO this makes the seller and the sale no longer private because it is taking place in a public setting and in a general marketplace, not the seller's home (for instance). The effect of this is that a disproportionate number of sales are taking place without background checks (I'm assuming that, I don't have figures--does anybody? could anybody?).

That seems like the very definition of the word "loophole"--if you're looking to buy a gun and have reason to avoid a background check, all you have to do is go to a gun show and find a private individual who's not a licensed dealer (and I assume that's easier to do at a gun show than it is ouitside a gun show).

So there's seems to be a technical distinction between "dealing" in guns and "selling a gun" or two or three privately. Given that gun shows are public events that certainly facilitate the sale of guns, it does not seem unreasonable that *anyone* who wants to sell a gun at a gun show should have to conduct the background check, whether they are a licenced dealer of not. I acknowledge that this is a burden on the seller; but I don't see it as an undue burden. The private seller could probably buy the service of a background check from a licensed dealer--more $$ for the dealer that way. It seems a small price to pay to shut off this source of gun sales without background checks.

Dirk

I hope this ramble made sense.

[Emoto]

40. A reasonably fair assessment

(and no, I didn't vist the link)

The same private individual who could sell a gun to another private individual at a gun show, could just as easily advertise and sell the gun in a myriad of other forums like "shotgun news" or the local paper. What is more convenient: drop a dime, place the ad, and wait for the phone to ring, or transport the gun to a show and walk around trying to sell it? Each method has it's merits from the seller's point of view.

To be clear, private individuals are prohibited from performing a NICS check (I don't know all the "why's" on that) so cannot really ever be sure about any stranger. Your suggestion about going through a dealer is a good one, and something that I and many other people I know (read "gun nuts" if you lean that way) would only sell a gun to a stranger that way.

The sticking point is found when you REQUIRE a dealer (who can set his price at whatever he wants, particularly if there is a captive audience) to do any and all transfers between private citizens - gunshow or not. If I want to sell a gun to my sister, for example, and know beyond the shadow of a doubt that she is not a "prohibited person", then why shouldn't I be able to do so?

Now, if you want to set up something for gun shows where every transfer gets a NICS check, but private citizens don't have to pay for it, or it only costs something nominal like a buck or 3, then I think that would be great. You'd see gun owners delighted to be sure about who they sell to, once the economics cease to be a burden. Contrary to what sopme folks would have you believe, the vast majority of gun owners want to do the right thing.

[Terran]

43. I don't propose

trying to regulate a genuinely private transfer of a firearm between two people. Certainly I would not advocate that all private transfers should have to involve a licensed dealer as a third-party--that's too much of an invasion of privacy. But I do think, for any public "market" setting--a gun show, a flea market, anything held on public land or to which the public is invited--and that would include a rummage sale at one's home--then the seller should be required to purchase a background check from a dealer, or any party that can sell that service for a resonable fee. $1-$3 is probably too low, I would think; maybe $10 is more realistic, but the price would be regulated by law, surely. Such a procedure does not infringe upon truly private transfers and transactions between private citizens.

Dirk

[slackmaster]

47. Right back to what I challenged MrBenchley to do, and MY idea

You have to come up with a working legal definition of "gun show", and Dirk you made a decent stab at it there.

But I think I have a better idea, and I've posted it before:

- Fix the problems with NICS (missing data, states not participating, etc.)

- Make NICS available for use by private individuals BUT make it a crime to use it for anything other than a firearm transfer. Charge a minimal fee to use it, and use the proceeds to maintain the system and notify by snail mail anyone who has been checked, that <name of person requesting the check> requested a check.

- Don't make the check mandatory, but make the seller liable if he or she fails to use the system and sells to a person who later turns out to have been prohibited from owning a firearm. That way you would be able to transfer one to your immediate family members and well-known friends without bothering with a superfluous background check.

I think such a system would be possible to sell to people out in the red states. It wouldn't create a gun registry or interfere with truly private transfers, and would provide a way to people who knowingly or negligently sell to criminals.

[Terran]

52. I think that's a very good idea

What kind of liability do you envision for people who fail to do a check and then sell to prohibited persons? Criminal? It needs to be something substantial--people won't bother to use the system if there's no penalty for screwing up.

And just so I understand you, this would apply to *all* gun transfers, right? Public and private? The voluntary nature of it would make it acceptable to most, I would think.

I do know that, right now, full criminal background checks are highly restricted. I don't know if any of you guys have worked in law enforcement; I worked in administrative law enforcement for several years--I was a state controlled substance investigator and then a state securities investigator. We had need for criminal checks in both offices. In the former we were not allowed to access those records directly, we had to call the Highway Patrol and get the results by snail mail. In the latter we had a dedicated terminal into the HP's database, but only one employee was allowed to use it and anyone requesting the data had to sign for the results, they kept such close track of its usage. It may be very different in other states, I don't know, but somehow I doubt it. So I think getting to a point where ordinary citizens can access criminal background info on their fellow citizens is going to take some doing. Not saying it can't happen, but there would be some hurdles there.

Dirk

[slackmaster]

55. Same penalty as currently applies to licencees who sell to felons

I think it's a potential 5-year stay in Club Fed.

I mean all transfers of modern firearms. I think it's safe to carry on with the tradition of not using background checks on antiques, muzzle-loaders, etc. Certainly all modern handguns. And I would apply the penalty to someone who sells a gun to his brother who later turns out to have a criminal record unknown to the seller. To put it another way, clarify that it is indeed a crime to sell to a prohibited person whether you have an FFL or not, and make use of NICS a "definitive defense" should it turn out you actually sold to a bad guy unless other evidence is found that you knew, e.g. you knew he or she was a drug user.

The output of a NICS check is simply thumbs-up or thumgs-down, the latter meaning the prospective buyer is already known by the federal government to be prohibited from owning a firearm.

I think the key to getting effective gun control passed is to ensure that truly law-abiding people are neither penalized nor restricted in any way for which there is not a clear, measurable benefit in public safety.

If I had a gun to sell and lived in a state where private transfers were unregulated (unlike CA), I would hate like hell to find out some stranger I sold to used it to rob a children's ice cream store for drug money. The only way a seller in such a state can presently avoid that possibility is to sell only to well-known people or sell to a dealer, either of which is likely to result in a lower sales price than one can get on the open market.

[Set]

67. Here, at least...

the court system in each locality can provide a partial background check, by allowing access to that area's past criminal and civil docket, which is part of the public record. This includes conviction information. This is a far shot from a comprehensive background check, because you have to manually check each and every court that you want the information for. You can do a state-wide check through the State Police, but doing so requires the signed and notarized permission of the person being checked.

My concern is what else such a comprehensive system would be used for. If the information is all part of the public record, I don't see how they could restrict access to just firearms applications. This would lead to things like job discrimination, with many employers requiring background checks for employment for jobs that shouldn't really require them, just as currently many employers require applicants to take drug tests or MMPI psychological profiles.

I know people who have trouble purchasing firearms because of their names being similar to the names of criminals. Eventually, it all gets sorted out, and they can still buy guns. A prospective employer, getting a "not approved at this time" report, would probably simply pass over a qualified candidate, rather than wait for a complete check to be finished.

It all comes down to the risk of discrimination (not based upon prohibited kinds of discrimination), and making such discrimination socially acceptable.

[Emoto]

50. Right...

...and I didn't read it that you were proposing such a thing. I went there because it is the logical (to me anyway) next step in in the gun control argument.

I like the idea that slackmaster proposes below about the elective NICS check. I don't ever sell any of my guns (don't have that many anyway) but if I did I would want to do it in such a way that a NICS check could be done. I think I would be ok with $10.00 because typically, at least here in Mass, it runs $25-40.00 or more depending on who does it for you.

This may irritate some, but even if we were to do this starting tomorrow, I personally do not believe that it would have any effect on the level of gun crime or the number of guns in the hands of prohibited people. I would invite anyone who has actually known a crook closely enough to know how they operate day-to-day, to comment on why.

One can argue that it would diminish one path of guns into illegal hands, and I agree, but I do not think that it would have any measureable effect on crime. IMHO, the only thing that will truly have an effect on gun crime is to reduce demand by locking up gun-using criminals for a really really REALLY long time.

[MrBenchley]

56. The plain fact is

that gun shows are tupperware parties for criminals and lunatics....and that the gun lobby knows this perfectly well. Hence the furious fight to keep this loophole wedged open.

[slackmaster]

63. Pure agitprop right off the VPC and Brady Web sites

Tupperware parties. LOL!

[MrBenchley]

65. Pure fact

plain and simple...

[slackmaster]

41. Dirk, the term is dishonest and deceptive

I don't dispute that the current structure of the law in most states allows people who aren't permitted to own guns to go to a gun show and buy them, but those people could also go to a public event called a "flea market" or a public event called a "church rummage sale" or a public event called a "garage sale" and do the same thing, not to mention classified ad sales, Shotgun News, and simply meeting individuals through a network of friends, at a gun club, etc.

It's the terminology "gun show loophole" I find objectionable. The issue is unregulated private-party sales of used firearms regardless of where such sales take place. Using the term "gun show loophole" is weasel words, deliberately trying to distract attention from the real agenda of regulating private party transfers. It's much easier to sell "closing the gun show loophole" to Mr. and Mrs. John Smith from Anytown, USA than selling them "If you want to sell grandpa's shotgun you'll have to do it through a dealer and pay all applicable fees." The latter would be much more honest, and I am all for making the National Instant Check System (NICS) available to unlicensed individuals provided that such access has safeguards to prevent it from being abused.

Statistics have been posted here many times showing that only about 1.5% of criminals who used a gun bought it at a gun show. Most criminals get their guns from a friend, acquaintence, or relative.

Police can and do patrol gun shows, both undercover and in uniform. Any known dangerous criminal who is being watched by police will be much easier to spot at a public event than if the same individual picks up a newspaper and looks through the classified ads for used guns.

The term "gun show loophole" is deceptive, it's propaganda, and I will not allow any use of it to go unchallenged.

[Terran]

48. My apologies slackmaster,

and I see your point. If you read the other replies I've made hereabouts, you'll see I'm proposing to regulate (i.e., require background checks) on transactions taking place in any *public* venue, not just gun shows; that would include flea markets, et al (and these things are not difficult to define legally, and when there's dispute, that's what the courts are for). My contention, which is of course debatable, is that any transation that takes place in such a venue is public by its very nayure, regardless of whether one of the people involved is a licensed dealer or not. I feel this is a reasonable distinction to make in an effort to subject more transactions to background checks. Even if only 1.5% of criminals buying guns were thus prevented, it would be worth it.

I repeat, I don't propose to regulate truly private transfers, because that is overlay invasive and vioative of privacy rights.

Again, my apologies about phrasing. I do not ever intentionally propagandize people--not my style.

Dirk

PS: I'll let you folks in on a little secret: I have become much more understanding of the RKBA point of view since the Coup of 2000.

[Emoto]

54. Heh

PS: I'll let you folks in on a little secret: I have become much more understanding of the RKBA point of view since the Coup of 2000.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

I am sometimes accused of "having strong opinions" when it comes to the Bill of Rights. I just happen to think that any erosion of ANY of the rights enumerated there is a Very Bad Thing and ought to be quashed. I am perceived as either liberal or conservative depending on which right I am defending. Isn't that whacked out?

[Terran]

59. LOL, yes, very!

I used to dismiss the argument that "we need our guns to protect ourselves against the government"--that was the province of racists and survivalists and rightwing religious cult nuts. But with Bush, I now have serious reservations. I don't own a gun right now, but depending on how things go...well, you know. Crackpot logic has evolved into common sense thanks to ol' Georgie. Maybe I'll be PMing one of you guys for some practical advice one day.

Dirk

[MrBenchley]

58. Who the hell are you trying to kid?

Its a gun show loophole...and it allows thousands of weapons per year to be sold to those who ought not to have them.

[slackmaster]

62. And how much of the real problem would be fixed by banning gun shows?

Not bloody much. The few people who buy their illegal guns at gun shows now would shift to other sources that are almost as convenient.

[MrBenchley]

69. A pretty good chunk WOULD be solved

There's no reason to FACILITATE gun sales to criminals and lunatics because "they might be able to get guns somewhere else."

[Set]

44. So, why not...

require ALL private individuals to conduct background checks, regardless of where the sale takes place? After all, you can advertise your guns for sale in the local Trading Post or newspaper classified section, so you're doing it in public. I once sold a gun in a hotel parking lot, because I lived out in the boonies, and the buyer lived in the boonies on the other side of town, so we met in-town, where we both worked. That was about as public as you can get...should I have been forced to conduct a background check? Please keep in mind, that was the ONLY gun I sold in a 3 year period, so I didn't qualify as a dealer in any conventional sense...


There are tons of sources for guns without background checks. Even if background checks were mandatory, there would still be tons of sources. As another poster suggested, to find a background-free source of guns, talk to a prostitute.

[Terran]

45. See my reply above

I don't advocate regulating private gun transfers, so it's not even an issue.

I meeting in a hotel parking lot is still a private transaction because it's unadvertised, the public was not invited, and the land is not public (although I doubt the hotel would have approved of it).

Of course there are lots of ways to buy/sell a gun that don't require background checks. My thought is only to regulate those venues that might *reasonably* be regulated, i.e., any public venue.

Dirk

[Set]

66. Isn't that the same basic idea....

"My thought is only to regulate those venues that might *reasonably* be regulated, i.e., any public venue."

behind a lot of the bull**** regulations that have been placed upon the First Amendment?

Think about it...like the time and place restrictions that led to First Amendment Zones...

I don't support the erosion of ANY of the Bill of Rights. I hope that the same statement would apply to you.

BTW, when I met the guy in the parking lot, I had advertized the rifle for sale in the local newspaper classified ads. That's how I "met up" with the guy. So, at least part of it was done "in public".

[MrBenchley]

28. "please find a definition of "gun show" "

Too frigging funny....are you REALLY trying to pretend that gun shows are fiction?

[slackmaster]

30. Thank you for proving my point

In order for there to be a "gun show loophole" or for that loophole to be closed, the law would have to include a definition of what constitutes a gun show.

Whining about the "gun show loophole" is nothing more than a lazy, deceitful way of saying that you want private-party transfers regulated. But since there is no legal basis to do that, it's a lot easier to pick on gun shows.

[MrBenchley]

32. Who do you think you're kidding?

Hand us another BIG laugh.

[slackmaster]

37. And still no supporting data from MrBenchley

No cite, no beef.

[MrBenchley]

57. And still no need for one

Despite your furious spin

[MrBenchley]

16. Dupe

What the hell?

[MrBenchley]

17. Dupe

What the hell?

[MrBenchley]

18. Dupe

What the hell

[CO Liberal]

19. The System's Been Acting Up Lately

Which explains the multiple posts.

[MrBenchley]

20. Ah well.....

whatta ya gonna do...

[JayS]

26. This link was just posted in LBN. If true, it explains a lot about...

...a motive.


http://www.advocate.com/new_news.asp?ID=9378&sd=07/24/03

[slackmaster]

31. Read it now before it gets buried

n/t

[Emoto]

39. Why would anyone care...

...in this day and age? I mean, maybe it would make life more difficult, but enough to murder someone? Not unless you're already quite a few sandwiches short of a picnic.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SyracuseDemocrat]

42. What's that line Carol Moseley Braun used

in the debate about how Bush is trampling on the bill of rights, the 1st, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th, or something like that? Well this is true, but Moseley-Braun and certain other Dems running are trampling on the 2nd.

[CO Liberal]

46. No One Is Trampling on Your Precious Little 2nd Amendment

We just want to make sure the "well-regulated" part of it is enforced.

[Emoto]

49. Then call muster!

Because the way that "well regulated" was understood at the time of the writing was "functioning correctly". In other words, it meant that (on whatever basic level) the militia had to be operational.

Given the threats that our nation faces, I would be glad to participate in a muster and a few drills that would help us be "well regulated" should the need for civilian volunteers arise.

[iverglas]

51. well ...

Unconcerned as I am by this second amendment, but curious as I cannot help being all the time ...

My reprint of Samuel Johnson's 1756 Dictionary says this in respect of "to regulate":

To adjust by rule or method. To direct.

So indeed, as you say,

"the way that 'well regulated' was understood at the time of the writing was 'functioning correctly'."

As it in fact is so understood today. Even my very modern Oxford Concise says:

1. control by rule
2. subject to restrictions
3. adapt to requirements
...

"Well regulated" could mean "functioning according to the proper method" -- "adapted to requirements" -- both then and now.

However, both then and now, it could also have been, and can be, understood to mean "functioning according to the proper rules" -- "controlled by the proper rules", or "properly directed".

Is there a basis for choosing the one meaning over the other? I'm not suggesting that there isn't; I wouldn't be surprised to find that there is extrinsic evidence that might, perhaps, be properly used to interpret the meaning of "well regulated" in that second amendment by applying one meaning of "regulate" rather than the other. I'm just curious what the basis for the choice is.

And ... even if the "functioning according to the proper method" meaning were to be preferred, what is there to say that the proper method -- the "correct functioning" -- might not call for "regulation" in the sense of "control by rule"?

And ... it strikes me that in any event, the text is referring to the "well-regulatedness" of the militia itself, and I'm not sure how the issue of the meaning of "well-regulated" even relates to control of firearms and the possession and use thereof (activities that people very obviously engage in for reasons having bugger all to do with the militia) for non-militia purposes.

I have just all kinds of questions about the interpretation of that second amendment, of course, but I'll stick with this one issue for now.

.

[Emoto]

53. Good questions and good analysis

"Well regulated" could mean "functioning according to the proper method" -- "adapted to requirements" -- both then and now.

However, both then and now, it could also have been, and can be, understood to mean "functioning according to the proper rules" -- "controlled by the proper rules", or "properly directed".

I think you have put your finger on the sense of it, and I am not able to supply you with a pat answer as to which of the various nuances apply. I can say that notes from the constitutional congress and the federalist papers lend weight to the idea that at least parts of all of the above should be considered.

And ... even if the "functioning according to the proper method" meaning were to be preferred, what is there to say that the proper method -- the "correct functioning" -- might not call for "regulation" in the sense of "control by rule"?

I think there is overlap. A militia - at least when called to action - is a military body and would have to have regulations and be controlled by officers who would see that the members followed orders, etc.

And ... it strikes me that in any event, the text is referring to the "well-regulatedness" of the militia itself, and I'm not sure how the issue of the meaning of "well-regulated" even relates to control of firearms and the possession and use thereof (activities that people very obviously engage in for reasons having bugger all to do with the militia) for non-militia purposes.

Again, you are correct that it is "militia" that is being modified by "well-regulated". To try to stretch that modification ("well regulated") to anything other than the function of the militia itself is to stretch credibility. Yet, it is not unusual to see that phrase taken out of context and misused. (I think CO was kidding, btw).

[MrBenchley]

61. Rubbish!

Well regulated meant well regulated....just as "for the defense of a free state" meant for the defense of a free state, and bear arms meant bear arms....as in military service.

[BullDozer]

64. Why

Did you not mention that "the people" means exactly that, the people?

and bear arms meant bear arms....as in military service.
Bull!

[MrBenchley]

60. Gun nuts only believe in half

of the second amendment...and then want to lie about what the amendment says.

[Yentatelaventa]

68. The NYC gun laws must be too lax

Why does NYC allow everyone to go around with concealed guns?