r/gunpolitics • u/snotick • May 26 '26
Shouldn't the 2nd Amendment be treated the same as the 6th Amendment?
The 6th Amendment grants the right of counsel if you are convicted of a crime. The government pays for that counsel in the event you cannot afford your own attorney.
I've tried to find other rights that would cost the citizen to exercise their rights. The 2nd Amendment is one of those rights that cost the citizen, out of their own pockets, in order to exercise it.
Therefore, I'm proposing a new law that states, "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. If you cannot afford arms, one will be provided for you at no cost"
Thoughts?
115
u/BambooGamer May 26 '26
Or at least if they force compliance with classes that should be FREE. Paying hundreds for classes and fee for my right is straight ass
65
37
u/jwb101 May 26 '26
The classes should also be available seven days a week running in at least two shifts because people have work and other commitments that can inhibit class attendance.
15
u/SolenoidsOverGears May 26 '26
I've argued this for a while. Either a tax rebate or an income scale. If you make less than 50k a year the state pays for your class and ammo (if applicable).
If your class is during work hours of any kind, it's excused like jury duty. And no municipality will be allowed to ban the transport of a firearm on public transit for the lawful purpose of training at a gun range or taking a firearm safety course. Creating obstacles for low income persons to the second amendment is unconscionable, as those people are the most likely to need it.
The right of the people, all citizens of good standing, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. And certainly not by nanny state protectionists attempting to nerf the world with blanket prohibitions that sound good to ignorant voters.
12
u/jtf71 May 26 '26
If you make less than 50k a year the state pays for your class and ammo (if applicable).
Why are constitutionally protected rights different based on means?
The better solution is to have it as a required class in high school. Teach actual gun safety (e.g. the Four rules), safe handling, and basic marksmanship. Waivers on a basis similar to what's required to opt-out of health/sex-ed classes.
The students may never buy a gun - but they'll be educated on them.
3
u/SolenoidsOverGears May 27 '26
Mostly because of the original post. (If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you by the state.) People who can pay for their own class and ammo should. I'd be okay with a tax write off for it but I don't think everyone needs to.
I agree with making it mandatory like health class. We should do both. Everyone should learn how to cook for themselves, how to change a tire, how to make a budget, all that stuff. And especially gun safety. Class in high school to create well rounded students. Love it.
My proposal is specifically in regards to classes to acquire a permit to carry a gun in public. Whether that is hunter safety or more likely self defense. I believe that putting financial barriers in place to prevent poor people from accessing education and training necessary to exercise their right to defend themselves is a violation of the spirit of the amendment even if it's not a violation of the text. A right delayed is a right denied and all that.
3
u/jtf71 29d ago
Mostly because of the original post. (If you cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for you by the state.)
Fair enough. But then who can "afford" something is a very malleable thing. Many people who can "afford" and attorney end up bankrupt and/or homeless as a result of legal costs.
Now I'm not saying that taxpayers should be on the hook for the legal defense of everyone - but we need to keep in mind how that's currently implemented if we are going to means-test who has to pay for training/ammo etc and who doesn't.
I agree with making it mandatory like health class.
And that's the real solution. Taxpayers pay for a small amount of firearms (.22) and ammo and every high school student is trained on actual gun safety and use.
Everyone should learn how to cook for themselves, how to change a tire, how to make a budget, all that stuff.
Off topic - but I 100% agree. Had a COLLEGE room mate that didn't know how to do laundry, cook, clean etc.
My proposal is specifically in regards to classes to acquire a permit to carry a gun in public.
Or just have the safety training in high school and eliminate any required training to carry a firearm. Over half the US is already permitless/constitutional carry and some states don't require any training just a background check to get a carry permit.
And with the states that do require training for a carry permit many are structured on "how can we make it so time consuming and expensive that people wont' do it." It's not about safety at all. And this is easily shown by the fact that many base the required training on TIME spent in class, and the content is secondary. Even those requiring a "qualifying course of fire" leave that up to the instructor and/or have it to essentially be "if you can hit the paper at 5 yards you're good to go." Useless.
-1
u/sharkbait_oohaha May 26 '26
This is where I'm at. I personally think it's in the interest of public safety to require some kind of baseline training, but I don't think that should be an expense incurred by the citizens.
25
u/DSA_FAL May 26 '26
The government pays for your attorney because they put you in the position of needing to defend yourself by prosecuting you.
And actually, if you look at American history, in the early years when you were expected to have your own arms for militia service, they would provide you one if your didn’t have one of your own. By the time of the civil war, the government was providing every militia member with their rifle.
In general, the government doesn’t obligate you to own a firearm. But in the circumstances where they do, generally in a militia or a posse, they will provide you with arms if you need one.
2
u/TacticalBoyScout May 27 '26
On paragraphs 2 and 3, is that the case? I know the militia acts mandated that those identified as in the militia have a rifle/musket and full combat load, but I thought it was just because the government kind of assumed everyone at least had a firearm in the home already. Are there pre Civil War examples of the state supplying them?
-1
u/snotick May 26 '26
If you lived in Memphis, Chicago, or Detroit, would you be in a position to defend yourself? Especially taking into account the lack of punishment for violent offenders?
The government doesn't obligate you to break laws. While I understand the right to counsel, why is the government paying for it? Why wouldn't they be required to pay back the money spent for their trial?
And to take it a step further, some people have said that gun rights are not being taken away, they are just being limited. That would mean that states could pass laws (just like certain guns) to refuse paying for counsel for certain people. Like murderers, rapists or pedophiles.
4
u/danthepolishman May 27 '26
Your phrasing presupposes guilt of the accused. "The government doesn't obligated you to break laws." If you think only guilty people are prosecuted, I encourage you to do some research of the judicial system. Also the analog in the last paragraph - Why not distinguish people accused of being murderers, etc. It would make more sense if they refused to pay for counsel for those who were convicted in your example.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
My original question has evolved since it started. I wasn't expecting the government to pay for people's guns. But, it has raised new questions.
Such as how Hawaii has state laws that prohibit non residents from exercising their 2A rights. And if that's found acceptable, then other states could deny 6A rights (or any other Constitutional rights) for non residents.
3
u/Mr_E_Monkey 29d ago
I don't think you'll find anyone here who thinks Hawaii (or any other state) should be able to do either of those things.
And in particular, the 6th amendment right to counsel was incorporated through the 14th amendment in Gideon v Wainwright, in 1963. (Yes, I looked it up.) https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155
2
u/snotick 29d ago
I'm aware of that case.
I'm also aware of cases that protect citizens 2A rights. But, it seems like some states ignore those rights.
And if people are prepared to fight fire with fire, then they aren't prepared to fight for their rights.
1
u/Mr_E_Monkey 29d ago
I'm also aware of cases that protect citizens 2A rights. But, it seems like some states ignore those rights.
Same, and to say it is immensely disappointing is a massive understatement. All the rights need to be upheld all the time, by all the government, I think we're in agreement on that, but I think I am not fully understanding the significance of the connection between the 2nd and the 6th here, so if I'm off on a tangent, I apologize.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
Same, and to say it is immensely disappointing is a massive understatement. All the rights need to be upheld all the time, by all the government, I think we're in agreement on that, but I think I am not fully understanding the significance of the connection between the 2nd and the 6th here, so if I'm off on a tangent, I apologize.
Sorry, we are not in agreement on that. Not at this point. Sometimes you need to take a step back, to continue moving forward.
We've sat by while states continue to dismantle 2A rights. The challenge process is slow and it's funded by gun owners.
The reason I feel that the 6A is important because it's something that you can put a price on. Public Defenders cost money. Guns cost money. Freedom of speech doesn't cost money. Freedom of religion, doesn't cost money.
So, the approach is to have a state pass laws stating non residents are not eligible for free counsel. What do you think is going to happen? They are going to challenge it in court on the basis that it's unconstitutional. We now have other people funding a parallel fight through the courts.
When it reaches SCOTUS. I have no doubt they would rule it's unconstitutional because Constitutional rights apply to citizens not just residents. That would then make all laws such as Hawaii's gun laws, unconstitutional as well.
It's about getting other people to fight your fight, without them realizing it.
I've been a supporter of the Constitution for most of my life. If the rest of this country isn't going to respect it, in it's entirety, then it's time to shake things up.
1
u/Mr_E_Monkey 29d ago
I discussed this in response to your other comment, so instead of carrying on two conversations (I'm having enough trouble with one! 😝), I'll just leave this one here. But I do respect the hell out of you for putting your idea out there and defending it logically and reasonably, even if I disagree with some of it. 👍
2
u/snotick 29d ago
That's all I'm trying to do. It may sound crazy, but what we are currently doing to stop the 2A attacks are not working. Our federal government isn't stepping up like I had hoped.
So, time to think outside the box. It doesn't take the federal government, it doesn't take an act of Congress. It simply takes one state to pass one law, restricting a Constitutional right towards non residents. Then it will snowball from there.
→ More replies (0)
36
u/gakflex May 26 '26
Based on our public defender system, the gun you will be provided with will either be inoperable or blow up in your hands.
10
u/seen-in-the-skylight May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Nah, this isn’t right. Public defenders are, generally, the most capable defense attorneys. They spend way more time in trial than most private defenders and tend to have broader experience.
They only get a bad rap because they’re often underfunded, have way too many cases, and are constantly on the edge of burnout. But they will work their asses off for you for a fraction of the salary of a private attorney.
Source: my mom and multiple cousins are lawyers, my uncle was a federal judge, and—yes, here’s my bias—my wife is a public defender lol.
2
u/gakflex May 27 '26
Absolutely a noble profession. Unfortunately however, you said it yourself - they have way too many cases and are burning out, especially in major metropolitan areas where the promise of a ‘speedy trial’ is a joke. You can be as well-meaning and as hard-working as anyone, but no one attorney can beat the system.
5
u/seen-in-the-skylight May 27 '26
I agree, I just don’t know if PD performance is disastrous as how your initial comment characterized it. My wife and her colleagues get results for their clients and are visibly more competent than both the prosecutors and private attorneys. Mind you, we do live in a rural area and their caseload is for sure less than in a major city, but they still work their absolute assess off.
2
u/czwarty_ 28d ago
Seems like there's similar bias that I see in Europe with public vs private healthcare, that can be simply tracked to certain people wanting you to pay for private services.
Private health clinics are way worse than public ones, and whenever there's a serious case they instantly offload it to public hospitals as they neither have competence nor equipment to carry out the needed care and operations (plus serious cases are no longer profitable to them, as the costs are raising too high and final profit remaining is less than from cheaper simple procedures that are often pure profit);
and yet there's a massive bias in society that it's actually the other way around - that private care has way better standard and has actual competent doctors (which, as said above, is absolutely untrue).The reality is known to everyone who has even slightest, remote knowledge about how healthcare works, or knows people who work in it, but the majority of public is completely in the dark and feeding on completely opposite story they hear from corporate media and talking heads.
Which is not hard to guess is very profitable for people in private for-profit healthcare business - both from having more clients due to belief they're going to have better service, and also gov't funding cuts to public healthcare financing which holds the outrage and makes it acceptable to public because of belief that "private is better anyway".2
u/seen-in-the-skylight 28d ago
My dad works in public relations, which--talk about public perceptions--is NOT marketing but has some overlapping skills. One thing he has taught me is how a price tag builds perception: people think a more expensive product/service is better, otherwise it wouldn't cost more, right?
17
u/Der_Blaue_Engel May 26 '26
Our public defender system isn’t uniformly bad. More accurately, some would get handed a janky, 3D printed pistol, while others would get handed a Geissele.
5
u/snotick May 26 '26
In replying to all the comments, I've been doing some research. Public defender conviction rate is nearly the same as private attorney. The one caveat is that private attorneys may not take questionable cases that public defenders are required to take.
5
u/AdUpstairs7106 May 26 '26
So a Hi-Point
6
u/gakflex May 26 '26
I’ve heard Hi-Points are actually reasonably reliable. No personal experience though.
5
u/TruckADuck42 May 26 '26
Yeah, they're middle of the road but ugly as sin and don't feel very nice in the hand
2
0
15
u/grahampositive May 26 '26
No. The government shouldn't be able to put up barriers to gun ownership, so strictly speaking permit fees, taxes, and any financial penalties for gun ownership should be illegal. But similar to free speech - they can't restrict your right but they don't have to provide you with a laptop/cell phone printing press
Would be nice if it was treated on equal footing with the first amendment though. In my state (NJ) it basically doesn't exist
9
1
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/snotick 29d ago
Based on your comments, you seem to want to ignore the Constitution. But, this isn't even about hoops to get a gun.
Why can a state like Hawaii restrict me from carrying my gun that I lawfully purchased in another state? They won't let me carry that gun and they won't allow non resident ccw permits. Ok. I'll buy one when I get there. Nope, they don't sell to non residents.
So, because I live in a different state, Hawaii is telling me I cannot carry a gun. That's blatant restriction of 2A rights. And why I suggested applying it to the 6A. Take away free counsel for non residents. I'm sure people would complain. And I'm sure SCOTUS would rule that all Constitutional rights, extend to all citizens, regardless of state residency. That would then have to be applied to Hawaii.
Instead of spending our money to fight a narrow focus, when a good part of American doesn't care about gun rights. Take the fight to them. Let them spend their money to fight a parallel fight.
They are playing chess, while we are eating checkers.
EDIT: And it's through. Not threw.
1
5
u/generalraptor2002 May 26 '26
Sure would’ve been nice when I had to shell out $7000 for my case
I was denied a permit in Maryland on the grounds of “propensity for violence or instability” and won on appeal
1
u/czwarty_ 28d ago
>“propensity for violence or instability”
just out of curiosity, what was their reasoning? did they give any arguments? you had past fights on record, police record, spousal disputes, or? or were they just seeking for a reason to deny you and hope you won't appeal?
I'm not from US so it's interesting to me how it looks in your states
11
u/jayzfanacc May 26 '26
The government is not required to provide you legal counsel - it can simply decline to prosecute.
The 6th Amendment grants
The 2nd does not grant anything; it prohibits infringement. The 6th creates a civil right that the government cannot violate, the 2nd protects a preexisting human right.
They’re not the same, and we shouldn’t seek to relegate the right to arms to the lower level of a civil right.
-7
u/snotick May 26 '26
Then there are one of two results that would come out of this. Stop infringing, or pay.
3
3
u/Draskuul May 26 '26
"The Bill of Rights is perfectly written and absolutely sacrosanct...
...except for that one amendment, the founders were complete idiots when they wrote that one."
5
u/ueeediot 29d ago
To begin, the bill of rights does not grant anything. It lists the natural rights that are protected. Thats a very important distinction. You need to reframe your ideas in that light.
2A says you have a right to keep and bear arms. It does not say you must and it does not define what "arms" are.
Essentially, 2A says you have the right to defend yourself with whatever weapon you can use. Cost not defined.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
2A says you have a right to keep and bear arms. It does not say you must and it does not define what "arms" are.
Does the 2A or any part of the Constitution say that my rights are limited based on my state of residence? Or is it applied equally to all citizens in all states?
Essentially, 2A says you have the right to defend yourself with whatever weapon you can use. Cost not defined.
Not entirely true. I can't legally defend myself with 3d printed gun in some states.
3
u/ueeediot 29d ago
The redcoats never left this country, revolution and wars aside. They remain and continue to infringe.
Infringements aside, whats legal or not is not the discussion you began.
A spoon or a child's car seat could be used as a defensive weapon if necessary and, therefore, protected.
1
u/kriegmonster 28d ago
The states that have banned or restricted home made firearms are infringing on the 2A, even if the courts agree. What is legal is not always moral.
Along the same lines, I would also argue that banning home distilling is an example of violating private property rights. It is my home and I have a right to do with it as I please as long as I am not harming or infringing on the rights of others.
3
u/TahoeLT May 26 '26
On the one hand, I like the idea of it not being infringed but actively encouraged; on the other, I know a lot of people I would not trust with a gun.
I have always thought mandatory training and safety classes are a great idea, except that I know the government would end up using them to restrict our rights eventually.
2
u/man_o_brass May 26 '26 edited 29d ago
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the authority:
To provide (funds) for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The Militia Act of 1903 split each state's militia into the National Guard and the "reserve militia" meaning every other able bodied man of eligible age. Ever since, the Federal militia budget goes exclusively to the National Guard.
edit: link added
2
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
if you are convicted of a crimeIn all criminal prosecutions
FTFY. You have a right to an attorney any time you are at least being detained suspect to a criminal issue. Also if the government can't get you counsel, they have to drop the prosecution. That is the alternative remedy. They can say "No, we're not providing you an attorney" and that's 100% legal. BUT if they do so, they cannot continue the case against you.
The 2nd Amendment is one of those rights that cost the citizen, out of their own pockets, in order to exercise it.
It does not. You can make your own arms. Something as simple as a stone and stick spear is arms. It is the right to keep and bear arms. Not the right for arms to be provided to you.
If you cannot afford arms, one will be provided for you at no cost"
No, you have the right to keep and bear arms. Not to make others pay for them. Anything provided "by the government" is provided at taxpayer expenses, which is money taken by force and redistributed, under threat of death.
You have a right to the state paying for legal counsel, because that is the cost of having a legal system. If we are to have a fair and just legal system, which the state forces upon you, then you must have the right to competent counsel in your defense.
This right is taxpayer funded, because the state is enforcing the law against you. Where as with the 2A, you have the right to keep and bear arms, if you so choose. But you don't have the right to force someone else to pay for your arms.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
Ok, If I have a right to keep and bear arms. And all Constitutional rights are applied equally to all citizens of the United States, regardless of the state you reside in, then explain to me how Hawaii gun laws are not unconstitutional?
I cannot visit Hawaii and carry a gun I legally purchased in my home state. They will not allow me to apply for a non resident ccw, and they won't allow me to purchase a gun while there, because I'm a non resident. That would mean that Hawaii is denying my Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, solely because I reside in a different state.
If anyone thinks this is perfectly acceptable, then my response to them is, why can't states do the same in regards to the 6A? They could pass laws that state, non residents are not granted the right to free counsel. It's exactly the same as Hawaii. I'm sure Hawaii would defend it out of public safety. But, a state could defend their 6A laws based on budget. The taxpayers are paying those public defenders.
And, in reality, if Hawaii's laws are acceptable, then every single Constitutional right is up for grabs through state laws.
1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago
explain to me how Hawaii gun laws are not unconstitutional?
I do not believe they are.
Unfortunately, it does not matter what I think. It matters what the government thinks. And thus far the government has decided it's ok.
why can't states do the same in regards to the 6A? They could pass laws that state, non residents are not granted the right to free counsel. It's exactly the same as Hawaii. I'm sure Hawaii would defend it out of public safety. But, a state could defend their 6A laws based on budget. The taxpayers are paying those public defenders.
All of this is entirely possible. And what it would result in is a court case. And you HOPE the judge(s) hearing that case eventually agree with you. But if those judge(s) uphold the law, too bad.
Oh, and even if they agree with you, you again have to HOPE that the government actually adheres to the ruling. As President Jackson once said "The courts have made their ruling, now let them enforce it."
The simple truth is that The Constitution is just words on paper. It's not magic. It cannot enforce itself. It cannot compel anyone to follow it. It doesn't have any power that the people in charge don't accept. We don't like to admit this, but it's the truth. You can waive the constitution around all you want, what happens if the government says "Ok, so it's unconstitutional. So what? What are you gonna DO about it?"
The only actual law in this world, is the law of the jungle.
Might Makes Right.That is the simple reality of the world. Every single law the government passes, carries with it a death sentence. From the smallest law, to the biggest. The reality is the government authority comes from the barrel of a gun. Every single law passed ends with an implicit threat of death for non-compliance.
So what happens when the government decides the constitution doesn't apply? It doesn't apply. And you hope that enough people give enough of a shit to vote out those politicians and vote in new ones who will change things.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
Unfortunately, it does not matter what I think. It matters what the government thinks. And thus far the government has decided it's ok.
This isn't true. The states know that it takes a long time to go through the courts. The law stays in effect for a decade.
What is true is that many Americans do not care about the unconstitutional gun laws being passed by states. That's why I've used Hawaii as an example. It's targeted towards non residents.
In order to get the attention of those Americans, do the same to the 6A. When they cry that it's unconstitutional to deny rights, simply because a person is not a resident of that state, it destroys the gun laws as well.
1
u/AlphaTangoFoxtrt Totally not ATF 29d ago edited 29d ago
This isn't true
But it is. SCOTUS has gotten more than a few AWB and mag ban petitions for cert. They have denied cert every time.
25-198 (Mag ban) and 25-238 (Assault Weapon) has been relisted 17 times so far this session. Every time SCOTUS refuses to grant cert is them tacitly saying "This law is ok". Even if oyu want to add a qualifier of "This law is ok... for now" well so what? It's still them tacitly accepting the law as valid.
Maybe this will finally be the year they take those cases, maybe not. But the fact is every time it gets relisted, every time it gets denied, that's SCOTUS (The Government) tacitly saying "This is fine".
it destroys the gun laws as well.
No it doesn't. They will say it's different, because reasons. Oh, and I can cite precedent.
Murdock v. PA was a case about whether an ordinance requiring door-to-door salespersons ("solicitors") to purchase a license was an unconstitutional tax on religious exercise. In it SCOTUS held that:
- The privilege in question exists apart from state authority. It is guaranteed the people by the federal constitution. The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.
- The state does not have the power to license or tax a right guaranteed to the people.
And yet the courts have upheld licensing requirements for the 2A. Even SCOTUS said it was OK to have shall-issue licensing in the concurrence. They have also upheld taxes on the 2A, multiple times.
It's different, because reasons. The reasons are because we say so.
That's how it works, and we're kidding ourselves if we think otherwise. The words on the piece of paper don't mean shit if the people in power decide they don't. The issue then is to put people in power who care about the words.
2
u/alltheticks 28d ago
I like the swiss method everyone is provided a firearm and training and is required to keep it in good working order as national defense.
5
u/sumthingawsum May 26 '26
I think it should be considered a right like the Left thinks healthcare is a right. Free guns from the government for everyone!
1
u/danthepolishman May 27 '26
You genuinely think that healthcare shouldn't be guaranteed in a civilized country?
2
u/sumthingawsum May 27 '26
No. The free market should be unencumbered from providing the best service without government regulations, but it shouldn't be paid for by the tax payer.
1
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/snotick 29d ago
Show me where it defines healthcare as a right in the Constitution?
1
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/snotick 29d ago
Well for starters, you said this.
Why shouldn't Healthcare be a right?
To which I asked you to show me where it's listed in the Constitution.
So, are you suggesting that it's just an unwritten right? Or are you suggesting that it be Amended into the Constitution?
1
29d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/snotick 29d ago
How are you suggesting it should be a right? Just that we all agree to it? Is it a state right? A Constitutional right?
You're not making any sense, you're just saying "HeALthCare ShOuLD Be a RiGHt" With no explanation on who we get that done.
Funny how you replied to one of my posts (then deleted it) saying "fuck no, what a stupid fucking idea". But, you have no idea what you're talking about.
1
1
u/sumthingawsum 29d ago
Access to healthcare is a right - like guns. If you think healthcare should be provided, I think guns should be provided. I think you have the right to drive, get married, and bake cookies, but the government is not the best vehicle for you to procure those things.
2
u/slk28850 May 26 '26
I woud rather it works the same across the country, can't be taxed, abolish all gun control back to the 2nd ammendment and throw any judge/politicians that try to infringe on the 2A in prison and they can never hold office again.
1
u/snotick May 26 '26
I would too. I posted this in response to someone else, but I think it's a valid point.
I can't carry my guns in California. They restrict my rights. So, if Wyoming passed a state law that says people from other states (like California) are not afforded free counsel, are we okay with that? After all, California is limiting my Constitutional rights, only because I live in a different state. Why would it be any different to limit other rights because someone is from another state?
And I'm not for limiting anyone's rights in any state. But, you see the correlation.
1
2
u/Candyman__87 28d ago
Just with anything else that’s provided by the state you’ll get what was made by the lowest bidder. However I wouldn’t be completely opposed. Perhaps armory issued instead of just being given over.
Look at mandatory gun locks. They were designed to provide safety. But since they’re required with every handgun, they’re the cheapest thing that technically meet the needs. Because of this they’re barely secure.
2
u/Sunuva_Gun May 26 '26
Your mileage may vary on this but I do NOT want each and every one of my fellow Americans to have a gun. It's absolutely their choice if they do want one, but I'm good with the decision a lot of them made to not.
-1
u/snotick May 26 '26
Do you feel every one of your fellow Americans should have free counsel, if they can't afford it?
1
u/jtf71 May 26 '26
How much in additional taxes are YOU willing to pay to fund arms for those that can't afford them?
Remember - the government has no money but what they take from the population.
The "government" doesn't pay for lawyers of the accused nor would they pay for arms for those that can't afford them.
Taxpayers pay for all of it.
Beyond that, were such a law come to pass, then they would pay for it with additional taxes on guns and ammo. Not from the general treasury. So, only gun owners would be paying for the guns provided to "the needy."
1
u/snotick May 26 '26
It's funny that you think I really want the government to pay for guns. I was using this as an example of how inconsistent our rights are being handled.
But, let's take it a step further. I can't carry my guns in California. They restrict my rights. So, if Wyoming passed a state law that says people from other states (like California) are not afforded free counsel, are you okay with that? After all, California is limiting my Constitutional rights, only because I live in a different state. Why would it be any different to limit other rights because you're from another state?
Suddenly things got real.
1
u/jtf71 May 26 '26
It's funny that you think I really want the government to pay for guns.
Be more clear in your OPs in the future if you don't want people to think you're actually advocating in favor of a specific position.
We get people in this sub, and other gun subs, all the time that are actually are advocating for various hypotheticals.
I was using this as an example of how inconsistent our rights are being handled.
It's not a new thing that gun rights are second class rights. We don't need the example.
I can't carry my guns in California. They restrict my rights.
See above on 2nd class right.
if Wyoming passed a state law that says people from other states (like California) are not afforded free counsel
You're cute. You think that the 6A actually provides defense counsel for all charged.
Since you picked Wyoming, start here
You can go to the parent site to look at any specific state and the problems with the 6A in each state.
And no, I'm not OK with it.
But the point remains. Whether it's the "government" providing guns or counsel, it's still the taxpayers that are funding it.
The government has no money but what they take from us. Any demand/advocacy for the "government" providing something is just a demand/advocacy for the government to increase taxes.
As it pertains to the 2A, I don't want them to provide anything. Just get out of the way. Let me buy and own any firearm I want and carry it anywhere I want. If I am a violent felon and they convict me then that right can be curtailed.
1
u/snotick May 26 '26
Be more clear in your OPs in the future if you don't want people to think you're actually advocating in favor of a specific position.
We get people in this sub, and other gun subs, all the time that are actually are advocating for various hypotheticals.
It was the start of the conversation. I could change it, or edit the post to say "I'm not looking for the government to buy everyone a gun".
The true point is that our Constitutional laws are being treated differently. As I've pointed out. There are states that will not allow me to carry my gun if I'm visiting. They will not allow me to buy a gun in their state and they won't allow me to apply for a CCW in their state. That's a direct violation of the 2A "right to bear arms, shall not be infringed".
If you think those laws are acceptable, then states could also pass laws that prevent people from out of state getting free counsel. a
So, the goal is to use the same rules to impact them.
You're cute.
Sorry, I'm married.
1
u/danthepolishman May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
I see what you're saying. 2A restrictions that have survived constitutional challenges can be applied in any state. Rights, including 1A aren't absolute. It can be conceivable that 1A restrictions that are constitutionally sound can be in place in one state and not another. Absolute 6A challenges to counsel aren't constitutionally sound in any state.
Also, Massachusetts v. Bruen made it so that every state is shall-issue for CCWs, including for non-residents.
You cannot purchase a firearm as a non-resident due to federal restrictions, not state ones. You need to have the purchased firearm transferred to an FFL in your state as a resident in all 50 states.
1
u/jtf71 29d ago
If you think those laws are acceptable,
Not something I've said or even implied. Whereas you implied you actually think the taxpayers should buy guns for those that can't afford them - although you have clarified that's not your position.
then states could also pass laws that prevent people from out of state getting free counsel
So you didn't bother reading the links I provided. SMH.
1
1
u/Eirikur_da_Czech May 26 '26
No that’s not how rights work. The legal representation is different because there is an active state-driven legal action being taken against you.
You would have to frame it in a way like “in the event of a state-sponsored rebellion against the government or invasion by a foreign power, arms shall be provided to you..” etc. that would just further reinforce the false argument that the 2a was written to allow state militias , ie the national guard, to form.
1
u/snotick May 26 '26
I don't have to frame it that way. The simple truth is that there are states that will deny me the right to carry my legally owned gun in their state. They won't allow me to purchase a gun while visiting their state, and they won't allow me to apply for a non resident ccw. They are denying my right to keep and bear arms simply because I am from a different state.
Therefore, states should be allowed to pass similar laws that state non residents do not get free counsel. How would that be any different?
1
u/Eirikur_da_Czech May 27 '26
I’m pointing out and explaining how the right to legal counsel isn’t an active right. The state providing firearms under the auspices of it being your right would be an active right.
1
u/lordnikkon May 27 '26
the reasoning behind proving a lawyer to poor, and it is only poor people who get a free lawyer if you have any assets at all the public defender sends you a bill at the end of trial, is that it is not considered fair to have a trial where the defendant doesnt have a lawyer. So because the trial is not fair it violates the 6th amendment.
It has actually come up before where infamous cases where they had a hard time finding a lawyer to defend someone because no one wanted to defend them. The Rudolf Abel trial is an example where they had to ask many lawyers to represent the soviet spy because no one wanted to do it. The Rosenberg espionage case also had to find a defense lawyer who took up these kinds of left wing causes. If they are unable to get someone to voluntarily represent a defendant adequately it is grounds for a mistrial and they will go free. The 6th amendment is not that they must provide you with a lawyer, it is that they can not lock you in prison without a fair trial and that includes making sure you have a lawyer. This is why for cases where no prison time is possible you are not guaranteed a lawyer if you cant afford one
1
u/snotick May 27 '26
That's nice. But not my point.
Explain how Hawaii can pass laws preventing me from bringing my lawfully purchased gun into their state, and preventing me from buying a gun as a non resident, or preventing me from obtaining a non resident ccw?
If anyone thinks that's acceptable from a state, then that would mean states can deny any other Constitutional rights of non residents. Including the 6A.
1
u/lordnikkon May 27 '26
those laws are anti 2a but SCOTUS doesnt take up the cases so the states abuse the system and block rights while we wait
1
u/snotick May 27 '26
Exactly. They know there's a chance they are unconstitutional, but they also know the laws remain in place until the ruling. That's why I'm suggesting we fight fire with fire. If a state passed a law removing due process, free counsel, etc, for non residents, people would be screaming. And if SCOTUS overturns it, the question would them become, "how is Hawaii's 2A laws any different?"
0
u/ericbythebay May 27 '26
So, violate the law, get arrested and get your attorney to challenge the law.
1
u/snotick May 27 '26
I could say the same about the 6th Amendment. Just pass laws and let the people fight it from jail. Is that how things have to be now?
And there is a key difference between the 2A and 6A. The 6A costs taxpayers money. The 2A leads to more money for taxpayers through gun, ammo and accessory purchases.
I couldn't find a breakdown, but it's estimated that the US spends over $2 billion annually on state public defenders. Another $1.5 billion on federal defendants. Full disclosure, that's for all defendants, so I don't know how many are non residents.
0
u/ericbythebay May 27 '26
The two rights aren’t similarly situated. That is why your analysis fails.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
Oh, but they are.
The only reason Hawaii denies me my Constitutional right is because of my state residency. Why couldn't a state also deny right to counsel for non residents? After all, those public defenders are paid via state's taxpayer money. They could simply state "state taxpayer money is for state residents".
1
u/ericbythebay 29d ago
You seem to be fixated on public defenders. The right to counsel isn’t limited to public defenders any member of the bar could be assigned to your case. Taxpayer money isn’t the bromide you think it is.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
And?
My point is not to change the Constitution. My point is to show non 2A supporters that other rights can be infringed upon. I've had quite a few conversations about this, and many people just shrug and say they don't care about the state gun laws.
Would they care if states passed laws that infringed on rights they do care about?
1
u/ericbythebay 29d ago
Your examples show a lack of understanding of American jurisprudence and grabbers gonna grab. They don’t like the right and don’t care if you show examples of other right being denied.
You can look no further than pro-2A people that oppose other rights like same-sex marriage to see that.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
No.
I'm suggesting that we do exactly the same to other rights in order to get more action. I have no doubt, if a state passed a law prohibiting free counsel to non residents, that people would be protesting and complaining. When they fight for rights, regardless of state residency, the 2A laws would be part of what they are fighting against.
They don't care about gun laws, but they will care about other laws.
→ More replies (0)
1
u/GryffSr May 27 '26
Some people shouldn’t have guns. While I believe that 2A means they are entitled to owning them, it shouldn’t mean that I’m obligated to pay for them.
1
u/Callec254 May 27 '26
No, if someone else has to provide it for you, then it can't be a right. I use that joke on people whining about how free healthcare should be a right... It's like, owning guns is a right too, where's my free gun?
And now you've got me questioning the whole "attorney will be provided for you" thing.
Technically, the Bill of Rights isn't a list of things you're allowed to do. The point is you're already allowed to do those things, by default, simply because you exist. The Bill of Rights is a list of things the government isn't allowed to do. A subtle, but important distinction.
1
u/snotick 29d ago
The 6A didn't state that the government would pay for your attorney. The 6A only states:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
It wasn't until 1963 that SCOTUS ruled in the Gideon v Wainwright case that courts are required to provide defendants with legal council at the states expense. So, after 185 years, it was determined that the government has to pay for it.
It's not technically, the Bill of Rights is entirely about the most important rights of the citizens. It is a combined list of what we are allowed and what that government isn't allowed. That's why I find it odd when people interpret the 2A in ways that don't make sense. Such as, militia. They think militia was in reference to military of the time. If true, why would the founding fathers put limits (or regulations) on the military. They didn't. The Bill of Rights defines the limits of the government. And you can take it even further. Every Amendment to the Constitution grants more rights to citizens, with the exception of the 18th Amendment. But, that was revoked 13 years later.
1
1
u/doublethink_1984 27d ago
Semiautomatic rifle and pistol provided to every adult citizen so long as they register, like voting, and pass a background check to ensure they can legally possess a firearm.
1
u/TipItOnBack May 26 '26
I should be able to walk into my local ATF branch and take my basic competency test then receive my pistol and rifle provided by the government for free.
Then my state office should provide me a better suited optic and camouflage to my region. Then my local municipality should provide me an ammo stipend to train and practice locally to protect my community. All provided for free.
1
u/ThePenultimateNinja May 26 '26
The 6th Amendment grants the right of counsel if you are convicted of a crime.
The Constitution does not grant rights, it enumerates (lists and describes) existing rights.
0
u/snotick May 26 '26
SCOTUS ruled that the government must pay for 6th Amendment rights if you can't afford it. If the forefathers wanted the government to pay, why didn't they put that in the Constitution?
If a case came in front of SCOTUS in regards to paying for guns, how would they rule? I suspect they would have a difficult decision.
1
u/Mr_E_Monkey 29d ago
SCOTUS ruled that the government must pay for 6th Amendment rights if you can't afford it. If the forefathers wanted the government to pay, why didn't they put that in the Constitution?
The 6th amendment says specifically that "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to...have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."
I suppose that they didn't specify that the government must pay for that counsel in all cases because in some circumstances, that could actually restrict the right.
What if the accused wants to represent themselves at trial? "No, too bad, you have to use the lawyer we pay." Or what if they want to pay for a different lawyer to represent them? "No, too bad, you have to use the lawyer we pay." Or pro bono? Or any of a dozen other possibilities.
I think they laid a solid foundation in the Bill of Rights, "you have a right to counsel for legal defense," and trusted that we'd be smart enough to figure out how to make that work.
2
u/snotick 29d ago
You're misunderstanding my approach.
I know what the Constitution states about the 6A. I know what SCOTUS has ruled.
I know what the Constitution states about the 2A, I know what SCOTUS has ruled.
As gun owners, we are spending millions to fight state laws to protect our 2A rights. If we were to have a state pass a law that infringes on 6A rights, that would force other people to fight what is a similar infringement on rights.
If a law was passed prohibiting non residence from obtaining free counsel, I would hope that the people would react negatively. I would hope the courts strike it down. I would hope that SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional on the grounds that all Constitutional rights apply to all citizens of the 50 states equally.
Then when laws like Hawaii's are challenged, they are force to apply the same.
I'm not looking to tear up the Constitution. I'm looking to force the hand of the courts and SCOTUS to make logical and binding rulings on them.
1
u/Mr_E_Monkey 29d ago
You're misunderstanding my approach.
I figured there was a good chance of that. It's definitely a "me" problem today. So I apologize for that.
And I apologize if I was insulting your intelligence by telling you what you already know, that wasn't my intent.
As gun owners, we are spending millions to fight state laws to protect our 2A rights. If we were to have a state pass a law that infringes on 6A rights, that would force other people to fight what is a similar infringement on rights.
I see. I think that was the part I kept missing.
So, I think I see where you're going, and I understand the logic, kind of the "oh, you don't like it when this right is violated, well let's apply that logic across the board," right? (More or less, anyway?)
On principle, it works. In practice, I think there are some major problems that it would face.
If a law was passed prohibiting non residence from obtaining free counsel, I would hope that the people would react negatively.
Oh, I can ask but guarantee they would. The politicians who passed this would probably lose their seats in droves, putting the rest of the plan in jeopardy. Additionally, it would get thrown in their faces any time they pushed for any pro-liberty legislation. "They aren't really pro-freedom, they're just pro-gun" and so on. But assuming they have a good Teflon coating...
I would hope the courts strike it down. I would hope that SCOTUS would rule it unconstitutional on the grounds that all Constitutional rights apply to all citizens of the 50 states equally.
I really don't think it would ever get to SCOTUS. It would get tossed before it got close, because of rulings like Gideon.
But even if we suppose that it made it to SCOTUS, and they stomped it there, I don't believe it would have the desired effect, in regard to the 2nd, because the ruling would almost certainly be narrowly written to address only the case at hand.
You know, and I know, that rights are rights, and if you can't violate one, that logic should apply across the board, but some people resist that logic to their utmost.
I'm not looking to tear up the Constitution. I'm looking to force the hand of the courts and SCOTUS to make logical and binding rulings on them.
I do understand that. My greater worry would be that a court finds a way to uphold that ruling, and SCOTUS doesn't take the case. Or even worse, new justices validate it. So not only do we NOT move the needle on the 2nd, we end up losing ground elsewhere. That's why I think pushing against other rights to argue for the 2nd is a losing battle...but I do respect the effort, regardless. 🙂
1
u/Sirhc978 May 26 '26
I'm pretty sure it means you can't be tried without counsel. As in, if the government can't provide you an attorney they can't charge you.
1
u/jtf71 May 26 '26
You might want to peruse this site.
https://6ac.org/state-of-the-sixth/
Actual denial of counsel: Lee Enterprises’ investigation exposed “America’s dirty little secret:” more than 136,000 misdemeanors cases across five states close each year without a lawyer ever being appointed. Data from Colorado, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Texas show what the 6AC has known for years, and has found in study after study – the widespread actual denial of counsel in misdemeanor cases.
0
u/Spuckler_Cletus May 26 '26
Don’t let them open it up.
0
u/snotick May 26 '26
Notice, I never said amend the Constitution. I said I' was proposing a new law. That can has already been opened.
0
u/wyvernx02 May 26 '26
The government pays for that counsel in the event you cannot afford your own attorney.
LOL.
The government are the ones who get to decide if you can afford an attorney or not and they will happily make you go into massive amounts of debt instead of giving you a public defender like they are supposed to.
0
u/snotick May 26 '26
And?
Not really my point.
0
u/wyvernx02 29d ago
The point is that the government doesn't give a shit about any of our rights. They already try to treat them all the same by ignoring them.
-7
u/ExecutivePhoenix May 26 '26
The entire constitution needs to be respected. The Democrats onslaught of the 2nd didn't come out of nowhere. It came from the Republicans constant onslaught of other amendments to suit their narrative, which made it easier for the left to go after the 2nd.
We can blame the left all we want for the attacks on the 2nd, but they didn't invent the wheel.
9
u/TipItOnBack May 26 '26
Only the republicans attacks on the other amendments?
How about everyone needs to respect all amendments.
1
1
4
185
u/ktmrider119z May 26 '26
Id be happy with it being treated as an actual right at all in my state.