Amendments: Self-Defense Rights

Self defense is also a fundamental right, even more so than property rights. What weapons one may have to assist in that defense is a subject of much debate, and many contradictory court rulings. Much of this argument is about the exact wording of the constitution. I suggest that instead of arguing about what the constitution means now, we instead determine what it would be best for it to say. So put the second amendment aside, and start from first principles.

Much of the function of government is to handle situations where two individuals' interests conflict. Let's make up an extreme situation: say I have an interest in having a weapon that would let me blow up the sun with no effort. (I don't, just for the record.) But my neighbor also has an interest in me not having such a weapon, because it makes me a threat to him. Our interests are in conflict, so government balancing those interests is appropriate. And given that one person having that much power totally destabilizes the entirety of civilization, I'd say they'd be right to come down against my interests entirely. So we can conclude that it is right for us to allow government to keep people from having weapons of infinite power.

On the other hand, I have fists. (On both hands, if I'm so inclined.) My neighbor would be safer if I didn't. But obviously you can't go around cutting everyone's hands off, because (shockingly) that actually makes everyone less safe. So it is not correct for us to allow government to regulate all possible weapons.

Somewhere between fists and nova bombs is a balance point. So how do we identify that point? At what point does a weapon's nature as a threat to my neighbor (all three hundred million of them) outweigh its value to me for self defense, or for whatever other purpose I may have in mind?

I would say we can divide weapons into three classes. Please note that I am proposing this scheme as a suggestion, and not saying that I definitely believe that each weapon I list in a class must belong there. I'm trying to start a conversation, not hand down wisdom from on high!

A) Trivial weapons. These are weapons that the government can not and should not try to regulate, if only because the side-effects of trying would be absurd. Things like fists, rocks, sticks, most knives, maybe  swords, possibly some guns.
B) Peaceful-use weapons. These are weapons that can be used to kill in small numbers, but have other legitimate uses, like hunting, sport, or self-defense. They may be regulated in some way, but should not be outlawed or made overly onerous to own. Things like shotguns, hunting rifles, swords, possibly small explosives.
C) Killing weapons. These are weapons which can kill large numbers of people easily, and have very limited application otherwise. As we do not live in a society where one's ability to kill large numbers of people quickly is of any significant benefit to law-abiding citizens, these weapons definitely should be regulated, and possibly outlawed entirely. These include automatic rifles, high-capacity magazines, and large explosives.

If we accept this scheme, the next step is to define which weapons fit into what class, and then to decide if and how to regulate those for which it is appropriate. However, those matters are entirely variable with time. As such, they are not appropriate material for an amendment to the constitution. We should set up the framework, at let the details of the law vary by time and location.

1) Weapons which convey the ability to kill large numbers of people rapidly are subject to regulation or ban by federal or state governments.

2) Weapons which are useful for purposes including (but not limited to) sport and self-defense, but are not useful for killing large numbers of people quickly, are subject to regulation by state and federal governments. However, their ownership shall not be barred to any adult person except for conviction of a felony or declaration of mental incompetence by a court of law. Regulation may include limits on the manner and locations allowable for carrying and storing such weapons, so long as such regulations do not interfere with the right of ownership and legitimate use.

Admittedly, this leaves the possibility for laws to be passed which limit weapons beyond the intent of this text. "Large" and "quickly" are vague. Those laws would then have to be challenged in court, as is often the case. In this case perhaps that is best. However, I am always open to better wording.

On the subject of self defense, when is one allowed to exercise force against another person? One reasonable standard is set by if you have a legitimate fear for your safety. If someone breaks down your door, you can be reasonably confident you are in danger and should defend yourself.

Except not so much.

No knock warrants are simple: they put civilians in danger, they put police in danger, and they diminish public trust in the police an the justice system. All that, for the ability to catch an occasional drug dealer in the act. This is not an acceptable tradeoff!

3) When executing warrants, arrests, or otherwise issuing legally binding instructions, law enforcement officers shall in all cases clearly identify themselves, their intent, and their duties, before execution of same.