Streams

Following Up: Hostages and Gun Mandate

Friday, December 17, 2010

It's not just Friday, it's Follow-Up-Friday! Maki Haberfeld, professor of police science at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, on President Obama's analogy between negotiating the tax bill and negotiating with hostages. Then, Mark Graber, a Professor of Law and Government at the University of Maryland, and Slate author Jeremy Singer-Vine  follow up on a caller's claim that there was once a period in American history in which citizens were legally obligated to own guns.

Guests:

Mark Graber, Maki Haberfeld and Jeremy Singer-Vine

Comments [20]

Mr Birch from South Cali

Lets not forget that criminals love more gun laws as the feed on the weak. That stats show that lesser gun laws result in lower crime. What about all the incidents where the presence of a gun by the victim alone halted violence or crime. Anti gun advocates are constantly caught printing lies and false information like using the armed robbers deaths tallied as gun violence victems.

Feb. 23 2011 12:39 PM
geTaylor from Bklyn., NY

Well the "Netnuts" are having a field day.

What exactly do they think is the precedential value of a law in effect for 3 years, over 200 years ago?

And by the way: why was the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on this statute not discussed?

(Maybe this phony "militia law" issue can also be used to require every resident of the United States to have a paid subscription to WNYC?)

Dec. 17 2010 12:10 PM
Calls'em As I Sees'em from Here, there & everywhere.

The Militia Act of 1792 was based on a power granting militia power to the Federal Gov't. The Commerce Clause does not give the President such specific power

It was repealed in 1795. Here is the text: "Sec. 10. [Revised to read:] And be it further enacted, That the act, entitled "Act to provide for calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions," passed the second day of May one thousand seven hundred and ninety-two, shall be, and the same is hereby repealed." APPROVED, February 28, 1795.

If was repealed "again" in 1903 when related legislation was passed, then God Bless. I think the commentary was in error on this.

The fact that WNYC & NPR has done such a bad job about discussing constitutional issues leaves the audience confused. Anglo-American history held all men as members of the militia.

The 2nd Amend gave them the right to own firearms as individuals. Part of the constitution provided for calling out citizens in an emergency in a federal militia. Later there was a provision for a National Guard, separate from the militia, just as in about half the states (including NYS) there exist a state militia separate from the respective state militias Nat'l Guard.

If the regime tries to use this history to support its unconstitutional health insurance canard, then it will be opening a can of worms related to firearm ownership that will go badly for them.

PS – Brian never told you, but the US Government has and always will be one of the biggest firearm and ammo dealers to the civilian market – it has been selling surplus rifles & ammo the public for decades and has sold millions of rifles and untold billions of rounds to the free citizens of this Republic.

Dec. 17 2010 11:18 AM
Dave from Rockaway, NJ

To this day, commissioned officers are required to purchase their own uniforms whereas enlisted service members are provided theirs. (Specifically, officers are given a one-time stipend upon initial entry and are expected to maintain their wardrobe items out of their own--higher--pay; enlisted receive a "clothing bag" of items initially and are paid an annual stipend for wardrobe maintenance.)

None of this applies to operational equipment such as body armor or weapon and ammo. (Anymore...)

Dec. 17 2010 10:52 AM
Bob from Avon-by-the-Sea, NJ

Re: The militia act.

Does this also impact the sacrosanct "right to bear arms"? The Second Amendment says "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."

The 1792 act seemed to indicate that the Founding Fathers felt every male between 18 and 45 was automatically a member of the militia and, therefore, could be "well regulated."

So Congress and the federal government CAN restrict who can carry or own guns by enforcing who is actually part of the militia.

Dec. 17 2010 10:51 AM
Mike from Tribeca

This reminds me of the story being reported during the news breaks about the gun store that was supposedly broken into by a Mexican gang that mentions the military grade automatic weapons that were stolen. Why on earth are military grade automatic weapons being sold to civilians?

Dec. 17 2010 10:49 AM
Judith Targove

Didn't anyone notice that the requirement of the act was prefaced by, roughly, "if called up into the militia, the individual must buy......" The quote is not exact but Brian L. read it this morning.

Dec. 17 2010 10:47 AM
Jeff Pappas from Ct.


Speaking of a required health care, lets think about when you own a car , home or small business, then You have to get insurance and so we are required to have Redundant insurance for the possibility of breaking a leg in any of those catagories, thus wasting $ , but then thats what corporations want !

Dec. 17 2010 10:47 AM
rlewis from the bowery

This is why the 2nd Ad has the part about "a well regulated militia".

Other than these folks, the rest of the US should be able to have their guns taken away from them.

Dec. 17 2010 10:45 AM

GAME SET AND MATCH!

i love the 2nd militia act!

thanks

Dec. 17 2010 10:44 AM
Robert from NYC

Hey Jeremy didn't tell us which instrument he played in HS! I played the Viola.

Dec. 17 2010 10:44 AM
Gino from Fort Greene

As a high school football player, I would have stuffed both Brian and Jeremy in their respective lockers.

Dec. 17 2010 10:44 AM
Jeff Pappas from Ct.


Speaking of charity and loving thy neighbor,
How come none of the wealthy did'nt call their republicans and say " hey we can afford a 5% tax increase to help our fellow Americans and the deficit " ?

Dec. 17 2010 10:44 AM
Catherine from Rockville Centre

Thanks for bringing this up. The president's comments really bothered me.

Dec. 17 2010 10:38 AM

of course we aren’t calling the republicans terrorists. are we?
the wealthy have the power in this nation and they weren’t going invest until they got their tax cuts

Dec. 17 2010 10:38 AM
Mike from Tribeca

Brian, your use of the president's comment to introduce this topic was pure nitpicking. What's next, introducing a segment on baking a cherry pie by mentioning a certain state legislator's dislike of whipped cream?

Dec. 17 2010 10:38 AM
LeoinNYC

The President's comment struck me too. Isn't threatening innocent people the only thing that hostage-takers do? Saying that you don't negotiate with them UNLESS they threaten people seems kind of silly — if they weren't threatening people they wouldn't be a problem.

Dec. 17 2010 10:37 AM
Robert from NYC

I think we all picked up on the error immediately, at least I did. I think Mr. Obama should have waited a few more years before running for such a big office.

Dec. 17 2010 10:36 AM
Ben

Brian, Obama said hostage takers, not terrorists. Isn't there a difference?

Dec. 17 2010 10:36 AM
matt from Manhattan

well he didn't say terrorists...

Dec. 17 2010 10:34 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.