h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hi, I don't think we've ever actually chatted but I'd like to say thanks for explaining your attitude to weapons in the Gun Control thread.

I also wanted to let you know that I'm studying at the moment (how are your studies going?) and that as I'm currently on a politics module and currently discussing the UK constitution (and obviously making comparisons elsewhere) we are talking about Gun control and your 2nd amendment.

I've given them a link to the gun control thread because we don't have anyone on our course who is in favour of private weapon ownership.

thought it would be polite to give you a heads-up.

I generally welcome discussion. I came back here to get perspective on Newtown. One Facebook, the discussions tend to be too simplistic and the format doesn't make off sustained conversations.

Also, a lot of people who want gun control don't know anything about them. Not that I know much beyond practical aspects of shooting find that law enforcement officers carry. Having people like that shape the discussions that are out there really bother me.

I also value the European perspective on issues, and I'm curious about their perceptions of America interesting. I still thing many European ideas are at best inconsistent with American culture.

As for school, I'm in break until next week. Then I have a week-long class on depositions before I start back to regular classes on Civil Procedure, Property, Comparative Criminal Procedure, and International Criminal Law.

That brings to mind the issue of the constitution in the UK. As I gather, there is no single constitution, but a series of documents and decisions which suggest constitutional principles. Is that right? I don't get how that works.

I'm a formality. I believe laws should be explicitly written. I understand that we need common law to fill in gaps, but I don't see how you can have constitution work that way.

yes, the UK constitution isn't written, it's a combination of various documents and legal precedent so a lot of it is, frankly, down to custom. It has pros and cons - it's very fluid and flexible and can be changed if necessary by passing laws or supreme court judgements.

Actually, there was a bit about it in my last textbook - I can dig it out and post it here if you like?

As for the whole gun-control thing, I think it's a fact that people from the States, and Europeans are nearly never going to see eye to eye on that. What tends to frustrate us is the dogged determination of groups such as the NRA to come out after every school shooting with the kind of guff they spout. It's generally too soon, and too much. We are not really keen on reading about 6 year olds getting shot but the NRA comes accross as putting the rights of gun toting idiots over schoolchildren.

But - as I think we both recognise, it's almost too difficult from people from our respective sides of the pond to get our heads around the other view.

I do know that the first time I was confronted with a GSW I went weak at the knees before getting a field dressing out.

The NRA was silent for a week after this last shooting, but without their voice, the gun control movement was rapidly gaining steam. There was only one narrative out there. The NRA needed to be out in public to speak out against over reaction.

I don't care for the executive vice president that does most of their speaking. His hyperbole is too extreme for my taste. I doubt you've seen some of the stuff that the NRA's lobbying arm puts out. A few ears ago I gave some of it to my wife for her to show her class in a unit on propaganda. I think they've eased off some over the last few years.

I'll be back to discuss the constitution later. I think it's the more interesting subject.

I agree with you about the constitution being more interesting

I'm not really the target audience for the NRA - and I already have weapons training so I'm not really a danger. It's like other drivers: I know how to handle a big powerful car, I'm more worried about the other eejits on the Autobahn.

The thing I find disturbing about having a living constitution without is that it seems like it can be changed whenever someone wants it to. Without having an explicit written constitution that seems very unpredictable to me.

In contrast, the US Constitution is explicit if although it is quite broad. Meanings may shift to some extent over the years, but that tends to be slow. Even when the meaning of the Constitution has been stretched to the point of absurdity, a law still has to have some tie to constitutional authority to be valid.

If there's broad agreement, we can amend the Constitution through a very public process, but everyone has ample opportunity to protest and be advised.

it means that it can be changed very quickly, by law, by the present government (ie. Dunblane school shooting -> very quick change to the law about private posession of firearms*)

Government legislation/laws are not binding on successive regimes - if they are elected with a mandate for something, changing some law or other, then they can do it. Even without a mandate if they can get it through parliament.

There are massive differences between the power(s) available to the UK govt compared to the US govt. Ours is a lot more powerful (able to make/change the constitution such as it is) which can then be reactively judged to be wrong (against, say, Human Rights Legislation which trumps most laws, since it comes from the EU) and recinded or amended as necessary. Your constitutional courts decide in advance of laws being passed (if I've understood my current module correctly ) and they don't get near the legislative chamber if there is a conflict in proposed law with the constitution.

I think they both have their strengths and weaknesses.

*notwithstanding the fact that we both disagree on private ownership of arms, it was what the overwhelming majority wanted *at that time*

and we do protest - more so, it seems, if it's about fluffy animals being shot rather than unemployed disabled people losing benefits

Our legislatures, all 51 of them not including the territories, can pass laws quickly. It's just that there is they have to comply with the Constitution.

Just to be clear, federal laws are only valid if they Congress is empowered by the Constitution to write that law. States of general police powers, so they can write any law they want as long as it doesn't conflict with a federal law. For instance, Congress doesn't have a power to enforce laws against murder per se. They can make it illegal to murder a federal official under the necesarry and proper clause or they can make it illegal to use a firearm which has traveled in interstate commerce in a manner to cause the death. The states can just make it illegal to kill a person with malice aforethought without having to reference any authroity to do so.

Laws are presumptively valid unitl challenged, so if there is an issue as to whether or not they violate a Constitutional right or if it's a federal law that it exceeds the grant of power in the Constitution, then someone has to challenge it in court.

that's interesting, I didn't know all that. I'm going to have to start taking notes.