Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You do essentially register when you buy a gun, even if we don't call it that. They check your ID, make certain you are a resident of that state, then a federal firearms license dealer runs your name through a database to check for felonies.
There are some states that do same day voter registration, which is basically the same thing.
I would like to flip this one around though - why is it an infringement of our rights to demand ID for voting, but not when buying a gun?
I'm ignorant of the process, but I don't think there is any connection between the check and the gun. The paperwork for the check doesn't list the gun that I'm buying, the serial number, etc. It's just a check on ME only. So it's *not quite* a registration list.
(I could be wrong though).
On police documentaries like the Forensic Files you will often hear something like: "records show the suspect purchased a 9mm handgun just before the murder" etc. Every state is different but I at least some of them keep track of purchases.
But those are usually the sales records at the store that the police had to get from the store. There's not a central repository that shows *Steve has an AR-15, a Glock, a Walther, and a S&W.*
>why is it an infringement of our rights to demand ID for voting, but not when buying a gun?
At the highest level, because you already had to provide an ID in order to register to vote. A name does not appear on the rolls magically - the voter must first submit registration documents and identification *at the very least* on the day of the election, but often weeks or even months before.‡
Imagine someone who wants to vote illegally.
The illegal voter must know all of the following:
1 - The name of the *already-registered* voter whose name appears on the rolls;
2 - The polling place of the already-registered voter;
3 - That the already-registered voter has not yet cast a ballot.
If any one of these three items fails, the attempt at rigging the vote will also fail.
In states where same-day registration takes place, they must provide the IDs in order to register; that's not easy to fake and it's also not something that any left-winger would ever take umbrage with.
^(‡ A few recent news stories highlighted that in some states, social services offices will provide voter registration forms as part of the packet of information. While this *does* happen, it's important to remember that those registration forms won't be accepted by the secretary of state's office without the correct attached documentation like a social security card, birth certificate, and license)
I used to live in a blue city inside a red state. I had moved so many times that I didn't have an up to date ID, so I was able to vote by bringing in a piece of mail (I believe it had to be an actual bill, so you couldn't just mail yourself something and use that).
You can't just look to state laws that are on the books for every instance. Many times, the cities or municipalities themselves have separate election laws.
I think the overall point is that our elections need an overhaul. At least half (or more) of the country do not trust our elections, and that's not sustainable. We need to invest in technology to safeguard our elections, something so radically secure that *everybody* trusts them without second guessing. I believe this would also increase voter turnout, considering the most common answers for why non-voters don't vote are A) "I don't trust the system," and B) "My vote doesn't matter." Both of these answers reflect the same sentiment: our elections are not trustworthy enough for the average person.
>At the highest level, because you already had to provide an ID in order to register to vote.
Not in many states. In my own state (Virginia) in 2020, you needed to have a driver's license to register online, but anyone could register by filling out a paper form, no ID required.
>Imagine someone who wants to vote illegally.
>The illegal voter must know all of the following:
>1 - The name of the already-registered voter whose name appears on the rolls;
>2 - The polling place of the already-registered voter; 3 - That the already-registered voter has not yet cast a ballot.
They don't have to go that much trouble. If I'm an illegal immigrant, I can just register as long as I have a local address. The only verification is that I check the box where I affirm I'm eligible to vote. That's it.
>anyone could register by filling out a paper form, no ID required.
That's funny, because the VA secretary of state's office requires proof of citizenship to register. The online portal requires (and did in 2020) your SSN. And on the website if you attempt to register online, there's a big popup that reads "IN ORDER TO USE THE ONLINE FEATURES OF THE VIRGINIA CITIZEN PORTAL YOU MUST HAVE A VALID VIRGINIA'S DRIVERS LICENSE AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER."
>I can just register as long as I have a local address. The only verification is that I check the box where I affirm I'm eligible to vote. That's it.
Absolutely untrue. Every state requires proof of citizenship to process applications to vote in federal elections (that's federal law). As you point out, in Virginia you must provide a valid driver's license number or non-driver's ID number to register online. But if you don't have those you must use the paper form. And again, the paper form and online portal both also require a valid social security number.
I'm not quite sure what you think the staff in the department of elections does.
>The online portal requires (and did in 2020)
That's for **ONLINE** registration. But you didn't have to register online. As I said, anyone could register by filling out a paper form, and mailing it in, no ID required. I know because I did it that way since I had a driver's license from out of state (I was military, and so exempt from having to change my license).
> Every state requires proof of citizenship to process applications to vote in federal elections
I have voted in every election since 1992 and in two different states and never once been asked for my passport, birth certificate, or any other proof of citizenship.
>And again, the paper form and online portal both also require a valid social security number.
Non-citizens can have social security numbers. Even illegal immigrants can get taxpayer ID numbers which are treated the same way.
https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10107.pdf
https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/How%20to%20obtain%20an%20ITIN.pdf
I have heard that under Gov Younkin they have tightened things up a bit in Virginia for 2024, we will see.
>in two different states and never once been asked for my passport, birth certificate, or any other proof of citizenship.
When you updated your driver's license in your new state(s), what information did you provide to verify your identity?
Since 1993 all states have been required to offer drivers to register to vote when getting their license or non-drivers id (as they generally require the same documents). That's called "motor voter" and it's why the drivers license number is sufficient on the online portal.
I just showed them my old license, and a utility bill to prove my current address.
But you don't need a driver's license to register to vote. That would be unconstitutional.
In-state, that makes sense. But for new state residents, Virginia requires proof of citizenship, proof of identity, and two bills. EDIT to add: SSN is verified electronically by the DMV.
My old license was from out of state.
And I don't recall them asking my wife and children for proof of citizenship. My spouse became a naturalized citizen here.
And yes, the DMWs theoretically verify SSNs but name and date of birth only. They really lean on that to verify citizenship, but as I showed you above, non-citizens can get SSNs too.
It is true that non-citizens can get social security numbers, but they must either be asylum applicants or have an LPR status. And again, those are verified by the state when they process the application.
>And I don't recall them asking my wife and children for proof of citizenship.
Full disclosure: my face is expressing doubt that your memory is as correct as you may think. I have lived in three different states, and I have never not been asked to provide a social security card and stamped copy of my birth certificate.
But I will say that if this is the case, what happened here is exactly as secure as requesting a state issued ID would be at a polling location.
There is no database of gun owners and their addresses, which is part of registering to vote, so it’s not essentially registering.
The 24th Amendment explicitly applies only to voting. It does not cover the 2nd Amendment.
The record is stored on paper with the dealer who sold it. When the dealer retires, dies, or quits the buisness, those records are transferred to the BATF. They are forbidden from digitizing these records.
If you were told you needed to register to voice political speech against the government, would you consider that infringement on your 1st amendment rights?
We register to vote so that the state knows who is casting the vote, what district to put them in, and who the candidates are (and so they don't vote twice on accident). We don't, to my knowledge, register other items that we own with the federal government.
With guns it comes down to the mechanics of it:
* Who keeps this list of "registered firearms" ATF? State Police? Local Police?
* What is it used for?
* Who can see this list? Do they need a warrant? Or can the police simply question everyone on the list everytime theres a shooting?
* How does this list decrease murders/crimes? My guess is by abusing the above point forgoing propable cause?
>(and so they don't vote twice on accident)
I know you're being polite about it, but this has me wondering who accidentally votes twice? I mean, if you legitimately can't remember you voted a few hours ago, should you even be voting in the first place?
I wonder if a bunch of dementia patients somewhere are pending charges for voter fraud...
I've worked polls a few election cycles, and I can say that I personally experienced 5-10 people come to vote in person after already submitting a Vote-by-Mail Ballot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, malice? Who knows. Thankfully, Florida (or at least my county) have a well-organized system for elections, so every one of these people were not allowed to vote that day. BUT, with counties/states that aren't as organized, it could totally happen.
In a perfect world, yes. In Florida, the mail-in vote would be noted as null & void and removed from the pile of 'already counted' ballots, and the in-person ballot would be counted instead. Not even a provisional ballot.
But when people speak about election fraud, this is a simple way for it to happen, especially in those disorganized (or DGAF) locations; I send in my mail-in vote, no one can prove I already voted, so I vote again. And honestly, if we want to get into some "it could happen, but probably doesn't," I could do this at several polling locations, stating that I don't have time to go to my assigned location and just vote Provisional anyway.
I've done dumber things. I'll setup a payment for my credit card, then I'll forget I did that and pay it when I get a notification that the payment is due. Boom: I paid twice :)
I assume things like old people forgetting they submitted an absentee ballot, then voting in person.
It’s (almost) happened to me before. My state has super early voting and I just took care of it one day in the middle of an otherwise busy calendar. Then weeks later I’m thinking “did I go vote? Or did I just think about doing it and not?”
Should definitely be something we track for since I’m not that old really, I’d imagine it happens even more frequently for folks like them.
I could see getting a mail ballot, filling it, and then having the day free so you go "oh I should vote" having forgotten that you did it a while back.
>We register to vote so that the state knows who is casting the vote,
We could register to vote so the state knows who has extremely deadly weapons
>what district to put them in,
Right, we definitely want to know who owns guns so the police can be prepared in the case of a domestic violence call.
>and who the candidates are
What?
>(and so they don't vote twice on accident).
So you need them to register to ensure they behave legally? Fine, you have to register your guns to make sure you're behaving legally (like, for example, you're legally allowed to possess them).
For the questions raised by the mechanics of it, those are questions that could be posed for voter registration, but can either be resolved or do not preclude a registration system.
For instance:
1) Who keeps the list of registered voters?
2) What can voter registration lists be used for?
3) Who can access that information?
4) [How] Does this actually decrease voter fraud?
1. The Secretary of State usually delegates that to the counties.
2. A variety of things, since it’s public document.
3. The public. Literally anyone.
4. Without a list of who has cast a ballot under which identities, there’s no way to prevent people from voting more than once. Without checking their identity against a list of criteria outlining who is allowed to vote, there’s no way to prevent people from voting who should not be allowed to vote. If the poll workers had to verify identities beyond a cursory check, there would be far more work on voting day(s) than they could handle. Registration lists compiled before the election solve all three problems.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> you were told you needed to register to voice political speech against the government, would you consider that infringement on your 1st amendment rights?
I don't necessarily think so. Absolute anonymity is proving to be problematic, and is allowing bad-faith actors to push mainstream opinions more and more to the extreme, including conspiracy theories and violence.
For instance you have groups like ANTIFA and Patriot Front who wear masks so they can cause trouble and then run away. No one knows who they really are or what their true intent is. I don't believe this behavior should be protected under the First Amendment because the core purpose of "free speech" is to convey ideas in good faith. Deceptive false flag behavior to discredit certain people/ideas does not constitute "speech". And also if your ideas are so outrageous, offensive, and unpopular that you need a shroud of anonymity to escape the social consequences of sharing them, then maybe they ought not to be shared in the first place.
If the idea of free speech is that the "marketplace of ideas" will sort out the good from the bad, then spreading ideas with absolute anonymity seems like a exploit to corrupt that market. If there is no consequence or responsibility for the people who perpetually share the bad ideas, then that market can't work.
It has nothing to do with Democrats, in fact I'm sure many on the left would disagree with me. This acting in bad faith with anonymity is something that both sides exploit and is doing a lot of damage to our political discourse.
In fact it was Nikki Haley who recently proposed something like this for social media and I agreed with her.
> This acting in bad faith with anonymity is something that both sides exploit and is doing a lot of damage to our political discourse.
The aspect I find interesting in this is that anonymity in public meat spaces will be a thing of the past within the decade. The police already have access to Clearview AI, and it's only a matter of time before the broader public does as well.
I don't see it as a "restriction of free speech" to require that people be honest about who they say they are or what is motivating their speech. In fact that should be a basic tenent of free speech in the first place.
If you can't trust that anyone around you is being honest and in good faith about their ideas, then how can you engage in free speech yourself?
>I don't see it as a "restriction of free speech" to require that people be honest about who they say they are or what is motivating their speech
Unless it's done with the intention of committing fraud, lying is generally protected speech.
>If you can't trust that anyone around you is being honest and in good faith about their ideas, then how can you engage in free speech yourself?
So anybody not willing to identify themselves would be prohibited from criticizing the government? That doesn't sound harsh and illiberal to you?
> So anybody not willing to identify themselves would be prohibited from criticizing the government? That doesn't sound harsh and illiberal to you?
Any more harsh or illiberal than requiring you to identify yourself to vote?
>Any more harsh or illiberal than requiring you to identify yourself to vote?
Yes. The purpose of voter ID is not to throttle your rights. It's to ensure the integrity of the election process.
The purpose of gun registration is not to throttle your rights. It's to ensure dangerous people don't illegally possess weapons and makes it easier to trace them.
>It's to ensure the integrity of the election process.
Election process has plenty of integrity without it. In fact, disenfranchising a bunch of voters in the name of "election integrity" is the *opposite*.
>Unless it's done with the intention of committing fraud, lying is generally protected speech.
In general, lying itself is a form of fraud or the act of lying directly
perpetuates fraud. There is very little exception to this, and we have laws on the books all over the place that recognize this.
>So anybody not willing to identify themselves would be prohibited from criticizing the government?
Not *just* against the government. But in general, yes I don't think people who wish to operate under total anonymity should have the same expectation of free speech. At some point there should be a real person, a true identity, willing to stand up behind what they say. We should call the people who are not willing to do that what they actually are - cowards.
Warning: Rule 3
Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
Why do you use their opinion to label an entire group of people?
Is it fair to say Republicans are the party of white supremacists? Since of course there are Republicans who are white supremacists.
In fact it is the exact opposite of that.
If you want to see what a modern day Stasi is, go log onto Twitter and watch as a million nameless, faceless users constantly try to gaslight you into believing how evil your friends, neighbors, and family members are.
All I'm saying is that we need to get back to a point to where there is transparency in speech and we can trust that people are who they say they are. We've gone way too far in the opposite direction where we are okay with shills and bots dominating the conversation.
"a hate machine made of anons" Is indeed bad but it is not anything vaguely like the Stasi.
And the block button is right there.
Meanwhile banning anon makes it much easier to police people's thoughts and speech.
Positive rights are granted, negative (including natural) rights are automatic. Even in ghettos absence of society. Though I would argue that voting is a civil liberty that is treated like a right so as to protect the exercise of other actual rights.
They are two different things.
Registering to vote is not an infringement because they need to be able to track that vote for the candidate so they know who it went to so that way the election can be effective.
Registration of a firearm is an infringement because it violates the second amendment. Plus it is a right in this country might I add. The way you buy a firearm is not as easy as buying groceries as people say it is. For example when I bought my Mossberg 590 Shotgun, I had to fill out an ATF Form 4473, and answer the questions on the background check, I also had to give my ID to show proof that I am at least 18 years old to purchase the shotgun. Here in the United States you need to be at least 18 years old to be able to purchase a long gun, that being a Shotgun and Rifle.
> Voting is not a right it is a civil liberty
Constitutionally speaking, can you clarify why it's not a **right**, and why that distinction is at all applicable or meaningful here?
Here are some relevant passages:
> 15th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States **to vote** shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude—
>19th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States **to vote** shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
>
> 24th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States **to vote** in any primary or other election for President or Vice President ... shall not be denied or abridged ... by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
> 26th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, **to vote** shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
**Source**: US Constitution, highly recommend giving it a read
If it's actually not a right, why does the Constitution keep referring to it as a right?
This refers to voting as a positive right, which lumps it into the other “rights” that are provided by the government. As opposed to the natural “negative” rights protected in the bill of rights or named in the Declaration of Independence. Voting has to be granted as a way of protecting our right to self governance as a society. But voting itself is not necessary to the pursuit of secure person, property, and pursuit of happiness. Hope this clarifies my position.
There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote. States decide who is qualified and may require registration as they will.
In contrast, ownership of a firearm is Constitutionally-guaranteed, and thus the bar for interference is higher.
Doesn't the 15th amendment guarantee the right to vote?
"Amendment XV Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
That being said, rights exist within reasonable constraints. It is reasonable to register to vote and it is reasonable that there should be some regulations on guns.
It guarantees that it cannot be infringed “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
“You must register to vote” is not barring individuals of a specific race, color, or condition of servitude from voting. It’s barring individuals who haven’t registered from voting.
I agree with everything you said.
I was replying to a comment that said there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for US citizens.
Just like if someone said 'there is no right to own a gun in America', I'd point to the 2nd amendment.
I’m more going for the difference between “this can’t be infringed” and “this can’t be infringed on this specific reason”.
The 2A much more clearly protects arms ownership than the 15A (or 19, 24, 26A) protect voting from various attacks.
You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own a firearm. You sort of only have a constitutionally guaranteed right to not be barred from voting on account of 6 conditions. Because there are still conditions on which the “guaranteed right” can be restricted, some people feel it’s not actually guaranteed.
Because it’s not relevant. The prefatory clause doesn’t limit the scope of the operative clause.
From *Heller*:
>The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Sure!
* Prior to Heller, the prevailing interpretation (supported by decisions like United States v. Miller (1939)) was that the Second Amendment protected the right to bear arms *in the context of service in a state militia.*
* Federal courts had previously upheld the "collective rights" interpretation, recognizing the government's authority to regulate firearms. The "right to possess firearms unconnected to service in a militia" is new.
* Previous courts had emphasized the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia...") as **essential** to understanding the scope of the right. *Heller* basically said "totally irrelevant, doesn't matter".
* Is basically a case of judicial activism and throws stare decisis in the trash.
Okay, that makes some sense.
But if all the means by which the vote cannot be restricted are effectively all-encompassing, then isn't there functionally a right to vote?
My understanding is that the right to vote cannot be restricted based on gender, religion, race, and sexuality, but the right to vote can be restricted by age and felony status.
Is that not similar to the 2nd?
Does the language of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th assume an underlying right to vote?
If it's a list of ways the right to vote cannot be restricted, then isn't there a presumption, in the language itself, that there exists a fundamental right to vote?
Yes, Amendment 15 created a bit of tension with the founding documents. Qualification to vote remains with the states, but for the first time, a "right" to vote is referenced - about 80 years after the founding. I read it as "states determine qualifications, but can't use race". Then subsequent amendments specify other qualifications which can't be used.
this is largely the current jurisprudence but that is also because no state has attempted to put on onerous restrictions.
i have little doubt that while it would be controversial, if a state attempted to restore a property requirement for franchise the supreme Court would strike that down (possibly citing disparate impact on a demographic that has extremely low home ownership where they can get to the magic level of disparity needed for that ruling, maybe the disabled) in a 9-0 or at worst 7-2 split with Thomas going against and lobbying someone.
The other guy is right.
There is no general right to vote in the Constitution.
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/10/19/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/01/opinion/think-constitution-guarantees-your-right-vote-think-again/
https://fairvote.org/archives/reform_library-right_to_vote_amendment/
https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531
Huh, well today I learned something. There is no explicit right to vote in the US Constitution.
Taken together, however, do the various restrictions on how states conduct elections (prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, gender, religion, sexuality, and economic poll tax bans) not create an implicit right to vote?
If a state that did not have an explicit right to vote in the state constitution passed a law saying only registered Republicans or democrats could vote, would it not be deemed unconstitutional?
There is an explicit right to vote in the US, it's just in the state constitutions rather than the federal Constitution. 49/50 states affirmatively protect the right to vote in their state constitutions and the one that doesn't (Arizona) still indirectly protects the right through other provisions.
A law like the one you suggest would probably be unconstitutional, it just would have to get struck down under state law rather than federal law (assuming it didn't also violate another part of federal law, the example you gave almost certainly would have a major problem under the 14th Amendment).
Okay, and then at the federal level, through the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th, there are constitutional restrictions on how states may conduct voting.
Thanks for the answer! I've genuinely enjoyed the comments I've had on this topic.
No. The right to vote in that amendment is assumed, but not directly affirmed.
EDIT: I see you accepted this explanation in another reply to another user. No need to reply to me here.
If there is no right to vote, then there is also no right to own a firearm. The Constitution never says "there is a right to vote" or "there is a right to own a firearm."
The existence of a right to bear arms is *assumed* in the second amendment but not created ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") just as the right to vote is assumed but not created in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments (all of which reference "the right of citizens of the United States to vote").
If there's no right to vote in the first place, then all of these amendments are nonsensical because they forbid abridgment of a right that does not exist. It would be fine to deny the vote to black people or women despite those amendments because, if there's no right to vote in the first place, then you can't abridge said right.
This is a completely nonsense approach to constitutional interpretation that would lead to the bizarre conclusion that the Constitution protects almost no rights.
The original Constitution itself specifies that states run their own elections. There's no guidance, so it appears to be as they wish, without restriction. Subsequent amendments put some restrictions on them.
It appears we'll have to disagree on our second amendment takes. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is about as clear as I could write it myself, and there is nothing anywhere else to add additional qualification.
>It appears we'll have to disagree on our second amendment takes. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is about as clear as I could write it myself, and there is nothing anywhere else to add additional qualification.
To be clear, I was not endorsing the idea that the second amendment does absolutely nothing. I was pointing out that this absurd conclusion follows from the idea that the Constitution does not provide a right to vote.
Compare the second amendment to the first amendment:
>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
You could easily have used that same language to write the second amendment:
>Congress shall make no law prohibiting the keeping and bearing of arms
So, why isn't it phrased that way? If anything, it would be most natural to copy the same structure from amendment to amendment.
There's a difference because these amendments are doing different things. There was *not* a right to freely exercise your religion in 1788. States had blasphemy laws and established religions, as did the preceding British legal system. The first amendment was meant to represent a discontinuity with what came before. There wasn't a pre-existing freedom of religion; the Constitution aimed to create one.
As to the second amendment, there was a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms in the America of 1788 and under the preceding British legal system. The second amendment represents continuity. It's saying, "there is thing we all know about called "the right ... to keep and bear arms" and we're going to make sure that stays intact and doesn't get infringed.
Now, look at the 15th (and other voting related amendments). It follows the pattern of the second amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The amendment isn't creating a right to vote because that right to vote *already* exists. In fact, if you read it carefully, you notice that it suggests that even the right of black citizens to vote *already* exists. It doesn't say: "Citizens of the United States shall be allowed to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But, like the second amendment, it's there to ensure this pre-existing right isn't infringed.
So, if there's no right to vote because the Constitution does not have an amendment saying "There is a right to vote" then there is no right to bear arms because the Constitution does not have an amendment saying "There is a right to bear arms." To be clear, I don't think this because this view is preposterous. But, given the exact way the language of the amendments matches up, you can't logically believe there is no right to vote but there is a right to bear arms (or vice versa).
>The original Constitution itself specifies that states run their own elections. There's no guidance, so it appears to be as they wish, without restriction.
That's not right.
Article I provides that members of the House of representatives be "chosen ... by the people." That wasn't originally true of Senators, but that's why we have the 17th amendment, and then the guarantee clause of Article IV guarantees to each state "a republican form of government." Most of the voting rights amendments have to do with who counts as "the people."
There's undoubtedly some latitude in there, but if you're systematically limiting or denying the right to vote, then Congress isn't being chosen by "the people" and your state doesn't have a republican form of government.
On the issue of registration specifically, Article I doesn't say that representatives shall be chosen "by the people who are registered to vote." It says "the people." In much the same way, the second amendment refers to a "right of the people" not a right "of the people who have registered their guns." Again, we're talking about precisely the same structure, and anyone interested in intellectual honesty is compelled to analyze these by the same principles.
14th amendment section 2 directly mentions a right to vote: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
There’s a distinct difference. Voting is protected from infringements on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay poll or other tax, age above 18.
Arms ownership is protected from all infringements.
And they guarantee your right to vote can’t be infringed on account of those conditions, but not on account of any number of other conditions.
“I guarantee I’ll give you $5” is not the same as “I guarantee I’ll give you $5 (subject to any terms and conditions I feel like, except these 6 conditions)”.
That’s not true. Courts have consistently held that this right is not absolute and can be subject to some regulations.
The Supreme Court, in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), affirmed an individual right to bear arms while also acknowledging that this right is not unlimited. They've allowed for certain restrictions, such as prohibitions on firearms for felons or the mentally ill, or laws imposing conditions on commercial arms sales.
Gun registration, like voter registration, can be viewed as an administrative process to ensure eligibility and accountability. Both serve to verify that individuals exercising their rights meet legal requirements and can be held responsible for their actions. Just as voter registration helps maintain the integrity of elections, gun registration could be seen as a means to promote responsible firearm ownership and assist in law enforcement efforts without fundamentally infringing on the right to bear arms.
The Court was not asked whether 922(g)(1) or 922(g)(4) were constitutional in *Heller*, so they did not rule on that question, instead stating “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms.” That’s not the same as affirmatively finding those two laws constitutional.
The Court didn’t find 922(g)(3) unconstitutional in *Heller*, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be found unconstitutional in a potential *US v Biden* case if Hunter chooses to go that route in appeals.
While the Court didn't explicitly rule on 922(g)(1) or (g)(4), their statement about 'longstanding prohibitions' does suggest a level of acceptance for such restrictions. However, you're correct that this doesn't preclude future challenges.
Constitutional interpretation evolves over time, and lower courts have generally uphported these restrictions under intermediate scrutiny. That said, you're right that future cases could potentially challenge these or other firearm regulations.
The core of my argument boils down to: the Second Amendment right, like other constitutional rights, is subject to some level of regulation to balance individual rights with public safety concerns.
>lower courts have generally [upheld] these restrictions under intermediate scrutiny
>is subject to some level of regulation to balance individual rights with public safety concerns
This is largely what *Bruen* was about. Neither *Heller* nor *McDonald* allow for interest-balancing or means-end scrutiny.
Per *Bruen*:
>Since *Heller* and *McDonald*, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.
>But *Heller* and *McDonald* do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. *Heller*’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.
*Bruen* was basically a beat-down of lower courts misapplying *Heller* and *McDonald* and very explicitly rejects the sort of interest-balancing lower courts were performing to balance individual rights and public safety.
We don’t interest-balance in 1A cases, we shouldn’t in 2A cases.
If you have ANY type of drug charges, misdemeanor or felony spousal abuse/battery charges, or a felony of any type you will not be allowed to own a firearm
I don't have any problem with a firearm registry, but at the same time don't see how it's all that useful either. I guess maybe in some cases, but if your firearm is stolen what good does it do? I guess maybe give investigators a starting point
As everyone else has talked about at length, there is no general right to vote. Government can't deny the vote on the basis of race, sex, age, nor can it require a poll tax. But there is no general right.
Another angle I haven't seen mentioned though is that voter registration doesn't really have a history of being used to make sweeping denials of voting. Gun registration has repeatedly been used to lay ground work for later confiscation. The people who claim this is just paranoid are the same people who constantly bring up other countries where registration turned into confiscation as examples the US ought to follow.
Because there is no constitutional right to vote, but there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Voting is a privilege, similar to owning a car.
There's actually a whole debate about whether or not "the right to vote" is actually supposed to be a right. The original Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't mention it at all, except for alluding to it being a states issue to decide who could vote. The 14th and 15th Amendments after the Civil War, and the 19th Amendment in the early 20th Century, are where our modern perceptions of the right to vote came from.
I don't want to make that argument here, and I personally do believe voting is a right, but it's interesting to me that voting is an act that was tightly regulated, and then over time has become more and more expansive, yet firearms have done the opposite (in terms of ownership which is the subject of debate here) over the same amount of time, and we are debating a kind of crossover of infringements.
Short answer (after I already typed two paragraphs): I believe *both* are infringements. The issue arises within two different arguments: the language of the Constitution, and also that the infringements are not equal given the point of harm arising from each right. The latter is a subjective argument, granted, but it is a salient one.
Society has long held that rights are not absolute, and therefore some amount of infringement is justified in certain circumstances. So, at face value, both infringements could be considered justified. But, the Constitution is the supreme document that outlines this stuff for us.
The 15th and 19th Amendments, if they can be combined for conceptual ease, both say that the right to vote of citizens shall not be denied or abridged *on account of race, color, prior conditions of servitude, or sex*. Their abridgement clause is conditional. It does not say the right is absolute or immune from infringement, it says it cannot be abridged on account of those immutable attributes.
In contrast, the 2nd Amendment simply says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not qualify specific cases immune from infringement, it just says "shall not be infringed".
So, from a Constitutional perspective, I believe that the infringement of a right to vote by requiring registration is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, whereas registration of firearms would be, in so far as we consider registration to be equal infringements in both cases.
Now onto the point of harm argument. I think where the point of harm occurs is relevant to discuss, especially when evaluating potential infringements. As the point of harm moves closer to the exercising of a right, then more infringement is justified. I think intuitively most people would agree with that statement without hesitation.
With voting, the act of casting the ballot *is* the potential point of harm. We talk about national politics all the time, but it's actually most damaging in local politics, where the volume of ballots cast is so low. There, very small numbers of improper voting can cause huge impacts to local governments. That's not to say this hasn't happened on a national scale, Bleeding Kansas is a great example of how exactly voting itself can be weaponized and used as the point of harm. But, regardless, it is the actual exercise of the right that is the point of harm.
In the case of firearms, neither keeping or bearing firearms are potential points of harm in and of themselves. Once exercising a right so granted, an individual must then go out and commit another crime, which they may not have committed without the weapon being available to them and therefore serves as the point of harm. In this case, as the right of keeping and bearing a firearm is more distal to the point of harm, it makes less sense to regulate that right, lest untoward consequences occur. Insofar as threatening behavior and actual assault are already illegal, the government has already established a precedent of targeting that particular point of harm. Targeting firearms specifically is superfluous, has untoward consequences, and ignores other elements that could supplant firearms in their role of supporting this particular point of harm.
While this argument neither absolutely justifies nor condemns infringement in either case, it does apply a spectrum wherein it would be possible for one to be considered an infringement and the other not, in my opinion.
There is a third argument pertaining to the magnitude of the effects of each infringement, and while I do in general agree that the magnitude of infringement induced by requiring voter registration is less than that induced by firearm registration, I feel that argument requires a lot more time and effort to debate and doesn't apply proportionally more backing to the arguments I have just made.
Different things.
Voting is a right, but you have to register to vote to get your name in the system, so that everyone can confirm that you are actually allowed to vote in this particular district. I can vote in my area on a particular ballot, but I can't vote in an adjacent district that might only be a mile a away. This ensures my voice is heard, but it also ensures that my voice doesn't unfairly quiet someone else's.
Owning a gun is a universal right, not dependent on geography. My simply owning a gun affects absolutely no one else, and so it's none of the government's business.
For a lot of them, yes, actually.
It really depends. I'd be okay with decriminalizing anything you can grow in your backyard like weed or mushrooms. I'd be okay with making PEDs like anabolic steroids available OTC with a big warning label.
Some drugs are so incredibly addictive, that they need to remain controlled. Those being stuff like cocaine, meth, heroin, opioid pain killers, etc.
In any case, I don't want to throw drug *users* in jail by default. We need to offer rehab as an option. I would much rather spend taxpayer dollars on that.
And that's consistent with my views on "arms". All personal firearms should be legal, even automatic weapons. But others should remain "controlled" like RPGs.
The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments protect voting from infringements on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay poll or other tax, age above 18.
The 2nd Amendment protects arms ownership from all infringements.
Voting can be restricted arbitrarily, so long as the restriction does not disproportionately impact one of the above groups. Theoretically, a law saying “to be eligible to vote, you must not have dyed your hair in the past 5 years” would pass muster. The same law applied to arms ownership would not.
Edit: the “dyed your hair” would probably fail under the VRA as impacting women disproportionately. But that’s because the VRA is much stricter than the 19A.
If the 2nd amendment is prevents any infringements, how come we haven’t seen things like the Brady bill and the zillion other infringements overturned in court?
I’m hoping we will, but you’re right - I should have been more clear. While textualists hold that it prohibits any infringements, the Court currently holds that it prohibits any infringements that don’t comport with the text, history, and tradition of arms regulations in the United States.
I think there are valid challenges to Brady and the GCA, substantial portions of the NFA, and a slew of other laws. But they take time and money to argue.
Because constitutional challenges are incredibly expensive and the industry doesn't want to cut off the Golden Goose that is government contracts. Constitutional challenges in regards to the 2nd amendment have been slow & few because they're being carried out by activist organizations on shoe string budgets that really have to choose their battles.
> The 2nd Amendment protects arms ownership from all infringements.
Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own a firearm? 2A does not say own, nor is it stated anywhere else in the Bill of Rights.
The right of ownership is implied, as is the right to vote.
Keep (v): have or retain possession of
Own (v): have something as one’s own; possess
Is this really where we’re at? You’re going to argue a substantive difference between “keep” and “own,” but not a substantive difference between the protections conferred by 2A and those by 15A, 19A, 24A, 26A?
> Keep (v): have or retain possession of
>
> Own (v): have something as one’s own; possess
Do you not see a difference? Having possession of a thing is not the same as owning a thing. For example: I can keep another person's car in my garage, that does not mean that I own it.
> Is this really where we’re at? You’re going to argue a substantive difference between “keep” and “own,” but not a substantive difference between the protections conferred by 2A and those by 15A, 19A, 24A, 26A?
I didn't say anything about the protections or compare them in any way. My only argument is that firearm ownership and voting are both implied rights, as they are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or BoR.
Voting, along with a handful of other things, I prefer to describe as procedural entitlements than as "rights" since they only exist within the context of protections against the government. If the government didn't exist, obviously your right to vote wouldn't be infringed upon, because there would be no reason you'd need influence on government policy, because there is no government. Rather, voting is an entitlement the citizens are granted under certain contexts and rules, such that they are able to influence the direction of government.
You know how some iPhone games require internet and some don’t? It’s like that - voting is inherently a “cloud” activity you can’t tally up the votes correctly if you don’t have a voter roll you can check against
Registration doesn't mean the same thing in both phrases. Your right to vote is in those elections relevant to where you live. If you live in Arizona you can't vote in Maine. Registration is letting the local secretary of state's office know you have moved and will be voting in the local elections. It's also some theoretical requirement, but rarely worried about too much, to also let your former state know you moved away.
Your right to bear arms isn't like your right to vote at all. There is nothing in regards to bearing arms that has any requirement or logical basis of the sort we see with voter registration.
Broadly, registration to vote is not (by itself) used as a way to restrict and to take away the right to vote, and is necessary for organizing and counting votes.
The same is not true of registering firearms, which the majority of states has not seen the need for.
2nd Amendment relates to fending off tyranny. If the government can track your firearm ownership then a tyrannical government could know know who is more likely to resist them when shit goes down, and go after them first. It's not only a privacy concern but a liberty concern.
Registering to vote determines your eligibility to participate in a democratic election. It prevents foreign interference from unqualified voters.
They are apples and oranges really.
There is no general Constitutional right to vote.
It doesn’t exist.
Meanwhile the right to bear arms is an entranced civil liberty.
So you’re comparing apples to aardvarks.
https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/10/19/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/01/opinion/think-constitution-guarantees-your-right-vote-think-again/
https://fairvote.org/archives/reform_library-right_to_vote_amendment/
https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531
The 14th Amendment section 2 directly describes a right to vote and also mentions a crime for a bridging that right.
See here "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
And yet there’s no general right to vote in the Constitution.
It doesn’t exist.
I didn’t post those articles for my health.
Half of them are from left leaning sources, no less, all agreeing with me.
Those articles apparently didn't read the constitution as the right to vote is right there in the 14th amendment. How do you square this section of the 14th amendment and come to the conclusion that there is no right to vote when text is right there? If the right vote doesn't exist, the state representatives can just pass a law saying there are no more elections and establish a kingdom, and there would be nothing that you could do legally. Which makes no sense as the founders did not want that. That's what they fought against. *Edited for typo
I don’t agree with you and neither do folks on the left who are trying to include a new amendment guaranteeing the right to vote.
Since it doesn’t currently exist.
https://fairvote.org/archives/reform_library-right_to_vote_amendment/
“CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THERE IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
While the U.S. Constitution bans the restriction of voting based on race, sex and age, it does not explicitly and affirmatively state that all U.S. citizens have a right to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in 2000 that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors for president. States control voting policies and procedures, and as a result, we have a patchwork of inconsistent voting rules run independently by 50 states, 3,067 counties and over 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal. “
Im very open to being wrong, and so i went to look at the link provided, and you're right. In Bush v Gore the Supreme Court ruled that voters do not have a right to vote under the 14th amendment for electors due the following: "that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution."
However, recently, we have had another ruling that somewhat contradictics this one. In trump vs. US government, "The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can not disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy, against candidates for federal offices. "
So, which is it do states have full power or does Congress?
What do you mean? I thought both rulings were in regards to the 14th amendment are they not? Do you believe that states have the right to just not run elections as you can't infringe of the right to vote if you don't offer voting at all? ( as technically that option is equal to everyone)
Yes, but both cases refer to the 14th amendment to determine how a state can run it's election do they not? Choosing who is eligible for the ballot or voting for electors comes from the same source of power, which is 14th amendment. Does it not? Do states have the power to run their elections however they see fit?
A) There is no right to vote.
2) You don't just need to just register to vote, you need to register to vote in your specific voting district. You don't need to register a firearm to a location.
III) There is no compelling reason for me to think I am required to register to vote in order to later disenfranchise me. Firearm registration would easily be used as a means of identifying the guns to be confiscated later, so I won't be registering anything.
If there's no right to vote, why is there an express problem with banning people from voting for any reason? It seems purposely obtuse to say there are protections to the ability to vote, listed in the constitution, but there isn't a right.
Side note: didn't downvote you my guy, just think your opinion is wrong and expressed that
In my opinion, there isn't a problem with banning most people from voting. Only people who contribute more tax dollars than they receive deserve to have a say in how that money is spent.
In a democracy people have a right to vote. That right can be restricted on the basis of age or criminal convictions, but other than that the right to vote is crucial in a democracy. If the government suddenly passed laws that prevented certain groups from voting that would be a problem.
Where does it say any of that in the Constitution?
Also, even if it were written there, I don't believe in either democracy or the Constitution.
The idea that every moron should get enfranchisement as an 18th birthday present and that will somehow produce good governance is just as baseless and as much an example of magical thinking as the divine right of kings.
It doesn't say in the constitution that everyone has the right to vote, but it protects restriction of voting rights based on certain criteria. But just because it's not in the consitution doesn't mean it's not a right in a functioning democracy.
So what do you propose instead of a democracy then? Are you an ancap or an anarchist? Or do you prefer a dictatorship? What's your solution, you tell me?
Okay, so you support "democracy" and think every person should be enfranchised for some reason. That's not written down anywhere in American law, whether you want it to be or not.
The system of government I want doesn't have anything to do with whether what I wrote in point A is true.
There are American laws that deal with federal voting rights, yes.
The founding fathers explicitly intended for government to derive their power "from the consent of the goverened". And so far democracy is the best system that we've come up with. It's not perfect but it's the best system so far.
So tell me, what other system do you prefer over a democracy? Do you prefer a Kim Jong Un style dictatorship? Or do you only want people over a certain income to vote? Or do you want to bring back the monarchy and install a King or Queen in the US?
What system do you think is better than a democracy?
Registering to vote is a necessity to ensure that elections can be conducted properly and fairly.
Restrictions on voting already exists -
* You must be 18 years old
* You must be a US citizen
* You must reside in the district you are voting in
There are far more municipal and district races than there are statewide or national races. While everyone in a state votes for a senator or a governor, only the people of a specific district, burrough, parrish, or other smaller unit of government can vote in those elections. Cities and counties are often broken out by district, most states have districts for the house and senate seats, and we have federal congressional districts for the House of Representatives.
In order to have any semblance of integrity, ensure that voters are selecting candidates for their districts and/or races as pertain to them specifically, and actually ensure that only people who are ALLOWED to vote do, then there must be some form of voter registration.
All that being said, I do not see a registration requirement for a firearm to be an infringement on the right to own one, but to the best of my knowledge, gun registrations apply almost solely to handguns and some rifles. My state does not require registration for me to go to Walmart and buy a shotgun or a .22 rifle.
A Republic is a form of democracy. The US is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy.
And as such the ability to vote should be a substantial right for any American citizen. There are age restrictions on voting and if you commit a felony you may forgo your right to vote. But aside from that all Americans should have a right to vote.
Or are you suggesting that states and federal government should have the power to exclude certain groups from voting?
> Or are you suggesting that states and federal government should have the power to exclude certain groups from voting?
They have.
I'm all in favor of a system where only net taxpayers vote.
Net Taxpayer is a completely unworkable system in the US. You'd have wild situations where an 18 year old in Nevada on a minimum wage job could be disenfranchised, while a similarly situated 18 year old in California would be allowed to vote.
Not to mention, you'd have weird situations for business owners that have a string of bad years causing a loss that completely eliminates their tax burden for those years.
Also, what about the truly disabled? Do you truly believe they shouldn't get a right to vote to protect their rights and interests?
If you're familiar with Heinleinism you'd know that disability is not grounds for exclusion from service in the Terran Federation.
I quote: *"If you came in here, blind and paralyzed from the neck down, and were silly enough to take the oath, we'd find something equally silly for you to do. The only way you can be rejected is if the psychologists find you mentally incapable of comprehending the oath."*
It’s almost like you’re describing your politics through a hard right libertarian science fiction author so people unfamiliar with his work don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.
No, it's because long experience with many, many blue tags has taught me that if you open with *"service guarantees citizenship"*, they will assume you are an ultra-militarist, and somehow a fascist, despite the fascist formulation being *"citizenship guarantees service"*.
“Service guarantees citizenship” is not inherently fascist but like… The kind of people who like Heinlein are usually fascists with delusions of Libertarianism. The idea that a disabled person does not get a say in government unless they directly serve the government is not a liberal one.
Please use [Good Faith](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) and the [Principle of Charity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity) when commenting. Gender issues are only allowed on Wednesdays. Antisemitism and calls for violence will not be tolerated, especially when [discussing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/17ygktl/antisemitism_askconservative_and_you/). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You do essentially register when you buy a gun, even if we don't call it that. They check your ID, make certain you are a resident of that state, then a federal firearms license dealer runs your name through a database to check for felonies. There are some states that do same day voter registration, which is basically the same thing. I would like to flip this one around though - why is it an infringement of our rights to demand ID for voting, but not when buying a gun?
I'm ignorant of the process, but I don't think there is any connection between the check and the gun. The paperwork for the check doesn't list the gun that I'm buying, the serial number, etc. It's just a check on ME only. So it's *not quite* a registration list. (I could be wrong though).
On police documentaries like the Forensic Files you will often hear something like: "records show the suspect purchased a 9mm handgun just before the murder" etc. Every state is different but I at least some of them keep track of purchases.
But those are usually the sales records at the store that the police had to get from the store. There's not a central repository that shows *Steve has an AR-15, a Glock, a Walther, and a S&W.*
>why is it an infringement of our rights to demand ID for voting, but not when buying a gun? At the highest level, because you already had to provide an ID in order to register to vote. A name does not appear on the rolls magically - the voter must first submit registration documents and identification *at the very least* on the day of the election, but often weeks or even months before.‡ Imagine someone who wants to vote illegally. The illegal voter must know all of the following: 1 - The name of the *already-registered* voter whose name appears on the rolls; 2 - The polling place of the already-registered voter; 3 - That the already-registered voter has not yet cast a ballot. If any one of these three items fails, the attempt at rigging the vote will also fail. In states where same-day registration takes place, they must provide the IDs in order to register; that's not easy to fake and it's also not something that any left-winger would ever take umbrage with. ^(‡ A few recent news stories highlighted that in some states, social services offices will provide voter registration forms as part of the packet of information. While this *does* happen, it's important to remember that those registration forms won't be accepted by the secretary of state's office without the correct attached documentation like a social security card, birth certificate, and license)
I used to live in a blue city inside a red state. I had moved so many times that I didn't have an up to date ID, so I was able to vote by bringing in a piece of mail (I believe it had to be an actual bill, so you couldn't just mail yourself something and use that). You can't just look to state laws that are on the books for every instance. Many times, the cities or municipalities themselves have separate election laws. I think the overall point is that our elections need an overhaul. At least half (or more) of the country do not trust our elections, and that's not sustainable. We need to invest in technology to safeguard our elections, something so radically secure that *everybody* trusts them without second guessing. I believe this would also increase voter turnout, considering the most common answers for why non-voters don't vote are A) "I don't trust the system," and B) "My vote doesn't matter." Both of these answers reflect the same sentiment: our elections are not trustworthy enough for the average person.
>At the highest level, because you already had to provide an ID in order to register to vote. Not in many states. In my own state (Virginia) in 2020, you needed to have a driver's license to register online, but anyone could register by filling out a paper form, no ID required. >Imagine someone who wants to vote illegally. >The illegal voter must know all of the following: >1 - The name of the already-registered voter whose name appears on the rolls; >2 - The polling place of the already-registered voter; 3 - That the already-registered voter has not yet cast a ballot. They don't have to go that much trouble. If I'm an illegal immigrant, I can just register as long as I have a local address. The only verification is that I check the box where I affirm I'm eligible to vote. That's it.
>anyone could register by filling out a paper form, no ID required. That's funny, because the VA secretary of state's office requires proof of citizenship to register. The online portal requires (and did in 2020) your SSN. And on the website if you attempt to register online, there's a big popup that reads "IN ORDER TO USE THE ONLINE FEATURES OF THE VIRGINIA CITIZEN PORTAL YOU MUST HAVE A VALID VIRGINIA'S DRIVERS LICENSE AND SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER." >I can just register as long as I have a local address. The only verification is that I check the box where I affirm I'm eligible to vote. That's it. Absolutely untrue. Every state requires proof of citizenship to process applications to vote in federal elections (that's federal law). As you point out, in Virginia you must provide a valid driver's license number or non-driver's ID number to register online. But if you don't have those you must use the paper form. And again, the paper form and online portal both also require a valid social security number. I'm not quite sure what you think the staff in the department of elections does.
>The online portal requires (and did in 2020) That's for **ONLINE** registration. But you didn't have to register online. As I said, anyone could register by filling out a paper form, and mailing it in, no ID required. I know because I did it that way since I had a driver's license from out of state (I was military, and so exempt from having to change my license). > Every state requires proof of citizenship to process applications to vote in federal elections I have voted in every election since 1992 and in two different states and never once been asked for my passport, birth certificate, or any other proof of citizenship. >And again, the paper form and online portal both also require a valid social security number. Non-citizens can have social security numbers. Even illegal immigrants can get taxpayer ID numbers which are treated the same way. https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10107.pdf https://www.ilrc.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/How%20to%20obtain%20an%20ITIN.pdf I have heard that under Gov Younkin they have tightened things up a bit in Virginia for 2024, we will see.
>in two different states and never once been asked for my passport, birth certificate, or any other proof of citizenship. When you updated your driver's license in your new state(s), what information did you provide to verify your identity? Since 1993 all states have been required to offer drivers to register to vote when getting their license or non-drivers id (as they generally require the same documents). That's called "motor voter" and it's why the drivers license number is sufficient on the online portal.
I just showed them my old license, and a utility bill to prove my current address. But you don't need a driver's license to register to vote. That would be unconstitutional.
In-state, that makes sense. But for new state residents, Virginia requires proof of citizenship, proof of identity, and two bills. EDIT to add: SSN is verified electronically by the DMV.
My old license was from out of state. And I don't recall them asking my wife and children for proof of citizenship. My spouse became a naturalized citizen here. And yes, the DMWs theoretically verify SSNs but name and date of birth only. They really lean on that to verify citizenship, but as I showed you above, non-citizens can get SSNs too.
It is true that non-citizens can get social security numbers, but they must either be asylum applicants or have an LPR status. And again, those are verified by the state when they process the application. >And I don't recall them asking my wife and children for proof of citizenship. Full disclosure: my face is expressing doubt that your memory is as correct as you may think. I have lived in three different states, and I have never not been asked to provide a social security card and stamped copy of my birth certificate. But I will say that if this is the case, what happened here is exactly as secure as requesting a state issued ID would be at a polling location.
There is no database of gun owners and their addresses, which is part of registering to vote, so it’s not essentially registering. The 24th Amendment explicitly applies only to voting. It does not cover the 2nd Amendment.
True but there is a record of you purchasing it.
> True but there is a record of you purchasing it. Where is that record?
The record is stored on paper with the dealer who sold it. When the dealer retires, dies, or quits the buisness, those records are transferred to the BATF. They are forbidden from digitizing these records.
And that isn’t equivalent to a registry.
That's semantics. Daddy gov can still access every piece of information on what guns you have and when you bought them.
No, it is not. Especially given that it does not apply to all firearm purchases.
The background checks are not recorded, and private sales With no notification of the government are entirely legal in many states.
If you were told you needed to register to voice political speech against the government, would you consider that infringement on your 1st amendment rights? We register to vote so that the state knows who is casting the vote, what district to put them in, and who the candidates are (and so they don't vote twice on accident). We don't, to my knowledge, register other items that we own with the federal government. With guns it comes down to the mechanics of it: * Who keeps this list of "registered firearms" ATF? State Police? Local Police? * What is it used for? * Who can see this list? Do they need a warrant? Or can the police simply question everyone on the list everytime theres a shooting? * How does this list decrease murders/crimes? My guess is by abusing the above point forgoing propable cause?
>(and so they don't vote twice on accident) I know you're being polite about it, but this has me wondering who accidentally votes twice? I mean, if you legitimately can't remember you voted a few hours ago, should you even be voting in the first place? I wonder if a bunch of dementia patients somewhere are pending charges for voter fraud...
I've worked polls a few election cycles, and I can say that I personally experienced 5-10 people come to vote in person after already submitting a Vote-by-Mail Ballot. Is it stupidity, ignorance, malice? Who knows. Thankfully, Florida (or at least my county) have a well-organized system for elections, so every one of these people were not allowed to vote that day. BUT, with counties/states that aren't as organized, it could totally happen.
Thank you for serving us
You're welcome! It's super-fun to do, and a great way to give back to my community :)
And when you do get one, you give them a provisional ballot which will be counted instead of their existing ballot, right?
In a perfect world, yes. In Florida, the mail-in vote would be noted as null & void and removed from the pile of 'already counted' ballots, and the in-person ballot would be counted instead. Not even a provisional ballot. But when people speak about election fraud, this is a simple way for it to happen, especially in those disorganized (or DGAF) locations; I send in my mail-in vote, no one can prove I already voted, so I vote again. And honestly, if we want to get into some "it could happen, but probably doesn't," I could do this at several polling locations, stating that I don't have time to go to my assigned location and just vote Provisional anyway.
I think it's entirely believable that some people vote by mail well before the election, forget (did I mail that?), and then show up in person.
It could be a case of mailing in your vote 2 weeks ago. Shit, did I remember to mail that?
I've done dumber things. I'll setup a payment for my credit card, then I'll forget I did that and pay it when I get a notification that the payment is due. Boom: I paid twice :) I assume things like old people forgetting they submitted an absentee ballot, then voting in person.
It’s (almost) happened to me before. My state has super early voting and I just took care of it one day in the middle of an otherwise busy calendar. Then weeks later I’m thinking “did I go vote? Or did I just think about doing it and not?” Should definitely be something we track for since I’m not that old really, I’d imagine it happens even more frequently for folks like them.
I could see getting a mail ballot, filling it, and then having the day free so you go "oh I should vote" having forgotten that you did it a while back.
>We register to vote so that the state knows who is casting the vote, We could register to vote so the state knows who has extremely deadly weapons >what district to put them in, Right, we definitely want to know who owns guns so the police can be prepared in the case of a domestic violence call. >and who the candidates are What? >(and so they don't vote twice on accident). So you need them to register to ensure they behave legally? Fine, you have to register your guns to make sure you're behaving legally (like, for example, you're legally allowed to possess them).
For the questions raised by the mechanics of it, those are questions that could be posed for voter registration, but can either be resolved or do not preclude a registration system. For instance: 1) Who keeps the list of registered voters? 2) What can voter registration lists be used for? 3) Who can access that information? 4) [How] Does this actually decrease voter fraud?
1. The Secretary of State usually delegates that to the counties. 2. A variety of things, since it’s public document. 3. The public. Literally anyone. 4. Without a list of who has cast a ballot under which identities, there’s no way to prevent people from voting more than once. Without checking their identity against a list of criteria outlining who is allowed to vote, there’s no way to prevent people from voting who should not be allowed to vote. If the poll workers had to verify identities beyond a cursory check, there would be far more work on voting day(s) than they could handle. Registration lists compiled before the election solve all three problems.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> you were told you needed to register to voice political speech against the government, would you consider that infringement on your 1st amendment rights? I don't necessarily think so. Absolute anonymity is proving to be problematic, and is allowing bad-faith actors to push mainstream opinions more and more to the extreme, including conspiracy theories and violence. For instance you have groups like ANTIFA and Patriot Front who wear masks so they can cause trouble and then run away. No one knows who they really are or what their true intent is. I don't believe this behavior should be protected under the First Amendment because the core purpose of "free speech" is to convey ideas in good faith. Deceptive false flag behavior to discredit certain people/ideas does not constitute "speech". And also if your ideas are so outrageous, offensive, and unpopular that you need a shroud of anonymity to escape the social consequences of sharing them, then maybe they ought not to be shared in the first place. If the idea of free speech is that the "marketplace of ideas" will sort out the good from the bad, then spreading ideas with absolute anonymity seems like a exploit to corrupt that market. If there is no consequence or responsibility for the people who perpetually share the bad ideas, then that market can't work.
Sorry, are you implying that people should have to "register" before they can voice political opinions?
Democrats have become the illiberal party.
It has nothing to do with Democrats, in fact I'm sure many on the left would disagree with me. This acting in bad faith with anonymity is something that both sides exploit and is doing a lot of damage to our political discourse. In fact it was Nikki Haley who recently proposed something like this for social media and I agreed with her.
> This acting in bad faith with anonymity is something that both sides exploit and is doing a lot of damage to our political discourse. The aspect I find interesting in this is that anonymity in public meat spaces will be a thing of the past within the decade. The police already have access to Clearview AI, and it's only a matter of time before the broader public does as well.
Define "social media". Is a small internet forum social media?
Why do you feel this way?
Because they try to justify further restrictions on free speech.
I don't see it as a "restriction of free speech" to require that people be honest about who they say they are or what is motivating their speech. In fact that should be a basic tenent of free speech in the first place. If you can't trust that anyone around you is being honest and in good faith about their ideas, then how can you engage in free speech yourself?
>I don't see it as a "restriction of free speech" to require that people be honest about who they say they are or what is motivating their speech Unless it's done with the intention of committing fraud, lying is generally protected speech. >If you can't trust that anyone around you is being honest and in good faith about their ideas, then how can you engage in free speech yourself? So anybody not willing to identify themselves would be prohibited from criticizing the government? That doesn't sound harsh and illiberal to you?
> So anybody not willing to identify themselves would be prohibited from criticizing the government? That doesn't sound harsh and illiberal to you? Any more harsh or illiberal than requiring you to identify yourself to vote?
>Any more harsh or illiberal than requiring you to identify yourself to vote? Yes. The purpose of voter ID is not to throttle your rights. It's to ensure the integrity of the election process.
The purpose of gun registration is not to throttle your rights. It's to ensure dangerous people don't illegally possess weapons and makes it easier to trace them. >It's to ensure the integrity of the election process. Election process has plenty of integrity without it. In fact, disenfranchising a bunch of voters in the name of "election integrity" is the *opposite*.
>Unless it's done with the intention of committing fraud, lying is generally protected speech. In general, lying itself is a form of fraud or the act of lying directly perpetuates fraud. There is very little exception to this, and we have laws on the books all over the place that recognize this. >So anybody not willing to identify themselves would be prohibited from criticizing the government? Not *just* against the government. But in general, yes I don't think people who wish to operate under total anonymity should have the same expectation of free speech. At some point there should be a real person, a true identity, willing to stand up behind what they say. We should call the people who are not willing to do that what they actually are - cowards.
[удалено]
Warning: Rule 3 Posts and comments should be in good faith. Please review [our good faith guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) for the sub.
The "Centrist Democrat" I was responding to up the thread.
Why do you use their opinion to label an entire group of people? Is it fair to say Republicans are the party of white supremacists? Since of course there are Republicans who are white supremacists.
>Since of course there are Republicans who are white supremacists. Like who?
Any white supremacist that vote republican. David Duke for example. So with your logic, Republicans are the party of white supremacists
This sounds like an apologia for the Stasi.
In fact it is the exact opposite of that. If you want to see what a modern day Stasi is, go log onto Twitter and watch as a million nameless, faceless users constantly try to gaslight you into believing how evil your friends, neighbors, and family members are. All I'm saying is that we need to get back to a point to where there is transparency in speech and we can trust that people are who they say they are. We've gone way too far in the opposite direction where we are okay with shills and bots dominating the conversation.
"a hate machine made of anons" Is indeed bad but it is not anything vaguely like the Stasi. And the block button is right there. Meanwhile banning anon makes it much easier to police people's thoughts and speech.
Because one is a positive right, and the other is a negative right.
Can you link to the constitutional text that makes one a positive right and the other a negative right?
Can you please elaborate.
Positive rights are granted, negative (including natural) rights are automatic. Even in ghettos absence of society. Though I would argue that voting is a civil liberty that is treated like a right so as to protect the exercise of other actual rights.
And where did you get that definition from?
They are two different things. Registering to vote is not an infringement because they need to be able to track that vote for the candidate so they know who it went to so that way the election can be effective. Registration of a firearm is an infringement because it violates the second amendment. Plus it is a right in this country might I add. The way you buy a firearm is not as easy as buying groceries as people say it is. For example when I bought my Mossberg 590 Shotgun, I had to fill out an ATF Form 4473, and answer the questions on the background check, I also had to give my ID to show proof that I am at least 18 years old to purchase the shotgun. Here in the United States you need to be at least 18 years old to be able to purchase a long gun, that being a Shotgun and Rifle.
Ya this is a common issue. Voting is not a right it is a civil liberty necessary to the exercise of other rights
> Voting is not a right it is a civil liberty Constitutionally speaking, can you clarify why it's not a **right**, and why that distinction is at all applicable or meaningful here? Here are some relevant passages: > 15th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States **to vote** shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude— >19th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States **to vote** shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. > > 24th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States **to vote** in any primary or other election for President or Vice President ... shall not be denied or abridged ... by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. > 26th Amendment: The **right** of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, **to vote** shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age. **Source**: US Constitution, highly recommend giving it a read If it's actually not a right, why does the Constitution keep referring to it as a right?
This refers to voting as a positive right, which lumps it into the other “rights” that are provided by the government. As opposed to the natural “negative” rights protected in the bill of rights or named in the Declaration of Independence. Voting has to be granted as a way of protecting our right to self governance as a society. But voting itself is not necessary to the pursuit of secure person, property, and pursuit of happiness. Hope this clarifies my position.
There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote. States decide who is qualified and may require registration as they will. In contrast, ownership of a firearm is Constitutionally-guaranteed, and thus the bar for interference is higher.
Doesn't the 15th amendment guarantee the right to vote? "Amendment XV Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." That being said, rights exist within reasonable constraints. It is reasonable to register to vote and it is reasonable that there should be some regulations on guns.
It guarantees that it cannot be infringed “on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” “You must register to vote” is not barring individuals of a specific race, color, or condition of servitude from voting. It’s barring individuals who haven’t registered from voting.
I agree with everything you said. I was replying to a comment that said there was no constitutionally guaranteed right to vote for US citizens. Just like if someone said 'there is no right to own a gun in America', I'd point to the 2nd amendment.
I’m more going for the difference between “this can’t be infringed” and “this can’t be infringed on this specific reason”. The 2A much more clearly protects arms ownership than the 15A (or 19, 24, 26A) protect voting from various attacks. You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to own a firearm. You sort of only have a constitutionally guaranteed right to not be barred from voting on account of 6 conditions. Because there are still conditions on which the “guaranteed right” can be restricted, some people feel it’s not actually guaranteed.
why did you leave out the first portion: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Because it’s not relevant. The prefatory clause doesn’t limit the scope of the operative clause. From *Heller*: >The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
> Heller is nonsense and will be overturned one day
Can you explain a bit why you think it is nonsense?
Sure! * Prior to Heller, the prevailing interpretation (supported by decisions like United States v. Miller (1939)) was that the Second Amendment protected the right to bear arms *in the context of service in a state militia.* * Federal courts had previously upheld the "collective rights" interpretation, recognizing the government's authority to regulate firearms. The "right to possess firearms unconnected to service in a militia" is new. * Previous courts had emphasized the prefatory clause ("A well regulated Militia...") as **essential** to understanding the scope of the right. *Heller* basically said "totally irrelevant, doesn't matter". * Is basically a case of judicial activism and throws stare decisis in the trash.
Okay, that makes some sense. But if all the means by which the vote cannot be restricted are effectively all-encompassing, then isn't there functionally a right to vote? My understanding is that the right to vote cannot be restricted based on gender, religion, race, and sexuality, but the right to vote can be restricted by age and felony status. Is that not similar to the 2nd? Does the language of the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th assume an underlying right to vote? If it's a list of ways the right to vote cannot be restricted, then isn't there a presumption, in the language itself, that there exists a fundamental right to vote?
Every right in the "bill of rights" has limits. All 5 rights in the 1st, and the right in the 2nd, all have limits.
Yes, Amendment 15 created a bit of tension with the founding documents. Qualification to vote remains with the states, but for the first time, a "right" to vote is referenced - about 80 years after the founding. I read it as "states determine qualifications, but can't use race". Then subsequent amendments specify other qualifications which can't be used.
this is largely the current jurisprudence but that is also because no state has attempted to put on onerous restrictions. i have little doubt that while it would be controversial, if a state attempted to restore a property requirement for franchise the supreme Court would strike that down (possibly citing disparate impact on a demographic that has extremely low home ownership where they can get to the magic level of disparity needed for that ruling, maybe the disabled) in a 9-0 or at worst 7-2 split with Thomas going against and lobbying someone.
The other guy is right. There is no general right to vote in the Constitution. https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/ https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/10/19/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/01/opinion/think-constitution-guarantees-your-right-vote-think-again/ https://fairvote.org/archives/reform_library-right_to_vote_amendment/ https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531
Huh, well today I learned something. There is no explicit right to vote in the US Constitution. Taken together, however, do the various restrictions on how states conduct elections (prohibiting discrimination based on race, sex, gender, religion, sexuality, and economic poll tax bans) not create an implicit right to vote? If a state that did not have an explicit right to vote in the state constitution passed a law saying only registered Republicans or democrats could vote, would it not be deemed unconstitutional?
>would it not be deemed unconstitutional? I am actually on the fence on this one. I think it *would* fail, but at best by 7-2 (Alito, Thomas).
I mean, it would probably be a first amendment issue, now that I've thought about it.
Maybe, but I am not sold on the idea that it would be unanimous.
There is an explicit right to vote in the US, it's just in the state constitutions rather than the federal Constitution. 49/50 states affirmatively protect the right to vote in their state constitutions and the one that doesn't (Arizona) still indirectly protects the right through other provisions. A law like the one you suggest would probably be unconstitutional, it just would have to get struck down under state law rather than federal law (assuming it didn't also violate another part of federal law, the example you gave almost certainly would have a major problem under the 14th Amendment).
Okay, and then at the federal level, through the 14th, 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th, there are constitutional restrictions on how states may conduct voting. Thanks for the answer! I've genuinely enjoyed the comments I've had on this topic.
No. The right to vote in that amendment is assumed, but not directly affirmed. EDIT: I see you accepted this explanation in another reply to another user. No need to reply to me here.
If there is no right to vote, then there is also no right to own a firearm. The Constitution never says "there is a right to vote" or "there is a right to own a firearm." The existence of a right to bear arms is *assumed* in the second amendment but not created ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed") just as the right to vote is assumed but not created in the 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th amendments (all of which reference "the right of citizens of the United States to vote"). If there's no right to vote in the first place, then all of these amendments are nonsensical because they forbid abridgment of a right that does not exist. It would be fine to deny the vote to black people or women despite those amendments because, if there's no right to vote in the first place, then you can't abridge said right. This is a completely nonsense approach to constitutional interpretation that would lead to the bizarre conclusion that the Constitution protects almost no rights.
The original Constitution itself specifies that states run their own elections. There's no guidance, so it appears to be as they wish, without restriction. Subsequent amendments put some restrictions on them. It appears we'll have to disagree on our second amendment takes. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is about as clear as I could write it myself, and there is nothing anywhere else to add additional qualification.
>It appears we'll have to disagree on our second amendment takes. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is about as clear as I could write it myself, and there is nothing anywhere else to add additional qualification. To be clear, I was not endorsing the idea that the second amendment does absolutely nothing. I was pointing out that this absurd conclusion follows from the idea that the Constitution does not provide a right to vote. Compare the second amendment to the first amendment: >Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... You could easily have used that same language to write the second amendment: >Congress shall make no law prohibiting the keeping and bearing of arms So, why isn't it phrased that way? If anything, it would be most natural to copy the same structure from amendment to amendment. There's a difference because these amendments are doing different things. There was *not* a right to freely exercise your religion in 1788. States had blasphemy laws and established religions, as did the preceding British legal system. The first amendment was meant to represent a discontinuity with what came before. There wasn't a pre-existing freedom of religion; the Constitution aimed to create one. As to the second amendment, there was a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms in the America of 1788 and under the preceding British legal system. The second amendment represents continuity. It's saying, "there is thing we all know about called "the right ... to keep and bear arms" and we're going to make sure that stays intact and doesn't get infringed. Now, look at the 15th (and other voting related amendments). It follows the pattern of the second amendment: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The amendment isn't creating a right to vote because that right to vote *already* exists. In fact, if you read it carefully, you notice that it suggests that even the right of black citizens to vote *already* exists. It doesn't say: "Citizens of the United States shall be allowed to vote regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." But, like the second amendment, it's there to ensure this pre-existing right isn't infringed. So, if there's no right to vote because the Constitution does not have an amendment saying "There is a right to vote" then there is no right to bear arms because the Constitution does not have an amendment saying "There is a right to bear arms." To be clear, I don't think this because this view is preposterous. But, given the exact way the language of the amendments matches up, you can't logically believe there is no right to vote but there is a right to bear arms (or vice versa). >The original Constitution itself specifies that states run their own elections. There's no guidance, so it appears to be as they wish, without restriction. That's not right. Article I provides that members of the House of representatives be "chosen ... by the people." That wasn't originally true of Senators, but that's why we have the 17th amendment, and then the guarantee clause of Article IV guarantees to each state "a republican form of government." Most of the voting rights amendments have to do with who counts as "the people." There's undoubtedly some latitude in there, but if you're systematically limiting or denying the right to vote, then Congress isn't being chosen by "the people" and your state doesn't have a republican form of government. On the issue of registration specifically, Article I doesn't say that representatives shall be chosen "by the people who are registered to vote." It says "the people." In much the same way, the second amendment refers to a "right of the people" not a right "of the people who have registered their guns." Again, we're talking about precisely the same structure, and anyone interested in intellectual honesty is compelled to analyze these by the same principles.
14th amendment section 2 directly mentions a right to vote: But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Have you read the constitution? 14,15, 19, 24, 26.
There’s a distinct difference. Voting is protected from infringements on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay poll or other tax, age above 18. Arms ownership is protected from all infringements.
Yet they are all ratified in the United States Constitution. Only difference between 2A and the other amendments is what team is trying to limit them.
And they guarantee your right to vote can’t be infringed on account of those conditions, but not on account of any number of other conditions. “I guarantee I’ll give you $5” is not the same as “I guarantee I’ll give you $5 (subject to any terms and conditions I feel like, except these 6 conditions)”.
That’s not true. Courts have consistently held that this right is not absolute and can be subject to some regulations. The Supreme Court, in cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), affirmed an individual right to bear arms while also acknowledging that this right is not unlimited. They've allowed for certain restrictions, such as prohibitions on firearms for felons or the mentally ill, or laws imposing conditions on commercial arms sales. Gun registration, like voter registration, can be viewed as an administrative process to ensure eligibility and accountability. Both serve to verify that individuals exercising their rights meet legal requirements and can be held responsible for their actions. Just as voter registration helps maintain the integrity of elections, gun registration could be seen as a means to promote responsible firearm ownership and assist in law enforcement efforts without fundamentally infringing on the right to bear arms.
The Court was not asked whether 922(g)(1) or 922(g)(4) were constitutional in *Heller*, so they did not rule on that question, instead stating “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms.” That’s not the same as affirmatively finding those two laws constitutional. The Court didn’t find 922(g)(3) unconstitutional in *Heller*, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be found unconstitutional in a potential *US v Biden* case if Hunter chooses to go that route in appeals.
While the Court didn't explicitly rule on 922(g)(1) or (g)(4), their statement about 'longstanding prohibitions' does suggest a level of acceptance for such restrictions. However, you're correct that this doesn't preclude future challenges. Constitutional interpretation evolves over time, and lower courts have generally uphported these restrictions under intermediate scrutiny. That said, you're right that future cases could potentially challenge these or other firearm regulations. The core of my argument boils down to: the Second Amendment right, like other constitutional rights, is subject to some level of regulation to balance individual rights with public safety concerns.
>lower courts have generally [upheld] these restrictions under intermediate scrutiny >is subject to some level of regulation to balance individual rights with public safety concerns This is largely what *Bruen* was about. Neither *Heller* nor *McDonald* allow for interest-balancing or means-end scrutiny. Per *Bruen*: >Since *Heller* and *McDonald*, the Courts of Appeals have developed a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many. >But *Heller* and *McDonald* do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context. *Heller*’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. *Bruen* was basically a beat-down of lower courts misapplying *Heller* and *McDonald* and very explicitly rejects the sort of interest-balancing lower courts were performing to balance individual rights and public safety. We don’t interest-balance in 1A cases, we shouldn’t in 2A cases.
>There is no Constitutionally-guaranteed right to vote I don't think this is a compelling argument. We assume we get to vote in a democracy.
I mean, that's incorrect. We do not live in a democracy, but rather a representative republic. That's always been true.
I don't think this is a compelling argument. We assume we get to vote in a \*representative republic\*
What if I have been arrested twice before in my life? You still think I should be allowed to own one?
Rights can be denied with due process.
Maybe. Depends what you were arrested for.
If you have ANY type of drug charges, misdemeanor or felony spousal abuse/battery charges, or a felony of any type you will not be allowed to own a firearm
I don't have any problem with a firearm registry, but at the same time don't see how it's all that useful either. I guess maybe in some cases, but if your firearm is stolen what good does it do? I guess maybe give investigators a starting point
As everyone else has talked about at length, there is no general right to vote. Government can't deny the vote on the basis of race, sex, age, nor can it require a poll tax. But there is no general right. Another angle I haven't seen mentioned though is that voter registration doesn't really have a history of being used to make sweeping denials of voting. Gun registration has repeatedly been used to lay ground work for later confiscation. The people who claim this is just paranoid are the same people who constantly bring up other countries where registration turned into confiscation as examples the US ought to follow.
Because there is no constitutional right to vote, but there is a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Voting is a privilege, similar to owning a car.
Voting is not a constitutional right.
There's actually a whole debate about whether or not "the right to vote" is actually supposed to be a right. The original Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't mention it at all, except for alluding to it being a states issue to decide who could vote. The 14th and 15th Amendments after the Civil War, and the 19th Amendment in the early 20th Century, are where our modern perceptions of the right to vote came from. I don't want to make that argument here, and I personally do believe voting is a right, but it's interesting to me that voting is an act that was tightly regulated, and then over time has become more and more expansive, yet firearms have done the opposite (in terms of ownership which is the subject of debate here) over the same amount of time, and we are debating a kind of crossover of infringements. Short answer (after I already typed two paragraphs): I believe *both* are infringements. The issue arises within two different arguments: the language of the Constitution, and also that the infringements are not equal given the point of harm arising from each right. The latter is a subjective argument, granted, but it is a salient one. Society has long held that rights are not absolute, and therefore some amount of infringement is justified in certain circumstances. So, at face value, both infringements could be considered justified. But, the Constitution is the supreme document that outlines this stuff for us. The 15th and 19th Amendments, if they can be combined for conceptual ease, both say that the right to vote of citizens shall not be denied or abridged *on account of race, color, prior conditions of servitude, or sex*. Their abridgement clause is conditional. It does not say the right is absolute or immune from infringement, it says it cannot be abridged on account of those immutable attributes. In contrast, the 2nd Amendment simply says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It does not qualify specific cases immune from infringement, it just says "shall not be infringed". So, from a Constitutional perspective, I believe that the infringement of a right to vote by requiring registration is not explicitly prohibited by the Constitution, whereas registration of firearms would be, in so far as we consider registration to be equal infringements in both cases. Now onto the point of harm argument. I think where the point of harm occurs is relevant to discuss, especially when evaluating potential infringements. As the point of harm moves closer to the exercising of a right, then more infringement is justified. I think intuitively most people would agree with that statement without hesitation. With voting, the act of casting the ballot *is* the potential point of harm. We talk about national politics all the time, but it's actually most damaging in local politics, where the volume of ballots cast is so low. There, very small numbers of improper voting can cause huge impacts to local governments. That's not to say this hasn't happened on a national scale, Bleeding Kansas is a great example of how exactly voting itself can be weaponized and used as the point of harm. But, regardless, it is the actual exercise of the right that is the point of harm. In the case of firearms, neither keeping or bearing firearms are potential points of harm in and of themselves. Once exercising a right so granted, an individual must then go out and commit another crime, which they may not have committed without the weapon being available to them and therefore serves as the point of harm. In this case, as the right of keeping and bearing a firearm is more distal to the point of harm, it makes less sense to regulate that right, lest untoward consequences occur. Insofar as threatening behavior and actual assault are already illegal, the government has already established a precedent of targeting that particular point of harm. Targeting firearms specifically is superfluous, has untoward consequences, and ignores other elements that could supplant firearms in their role of supporting this particular point of harm. While this argument neither absolutely justifies nor condemns infringement in either case, it does apply a spectrum wherein it would be possible for one to be considered an infringement and the other not, in my opinion. There is a third argument pertaining to the magnitude of the effects of each infringement, and while I do in general agree that the magnitude of infringement induced by requiring voter registration is less than that induced by firearm registration, I feel that argument requires a lot more time and effort to debate and doesn't apply proportionally more backing to the arguments I have just made.
Different things. Voting is a right, but you have to register to vote to get your name in the system, so that everyone can confirm that you are actually allowed to vote in this particular district. I can vote in my area on a particular ballot, but I can't vote in an adjacent district that might only be a mile a away. This ensures my voice is heard, but it also ensures that my voice doesn't unfairly quiet someone else's. Owning a gun is a universal right, not dependent on geography. My simply owning a gun affects absolutely no one else, and so it's none of the government's business.
> My simply owning a gun affects absolutely no one else, and so it's none of the government's business. Are you also pro drug legalization then?
For a lot of them, yes, actually. It really depends. I'd be okay with decriminalizing anything you can grow in your backyard like weed or mushrooms. I'd be okay with making PEDs like anabolic steroids available OTC with a big warning label. Some drugs are so incredibly addictive, that they need to remain controlled. Those being stuff like cocaine, meth, heroin, opioid pain killers, etc. In any case, I don't want to throw drug *users* in jail by default. We need to offer rehab as an option. I would much rather spend taxpayer dollars on that. And that's consistent with my views on "arms". All personal firearms should be legal, even automatic weapons. But others should remain "controlled" like RPGs.
The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments protect voting from infringements on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, failure to pay poll or other tax, age above 18. The 2nd Amendment protects arms ownership from all infringements. Voting can be restricted arbitrarily, so long as the restriction does not disproportionately impact one of the above groups. Theoretically, a law saying “to be eligible to vote, you must not have dyed your hair in the past 5 years” would pass muster. The same law applied to arms ownership would not. Edit: the “dyed your hair” would probably fail under the VRA as impacting women disproportionately. But that’s because the VRA is much stricter than the 19A.
If the 2nd amendment is prevents any infringements, how come we haven’t seen things like the Brady bill and the zillion other infringements overturned in court?
I’m hoping we will, but you’re right - I should have been more clear. While textualists hold that it prohibits any infringements, the Court currently holds that it prohibits any infringements that don’t comport with the text, history, and tradition of arms regulations in the United States. I think there are valid challenges to Brady and the GCA, substantial portions of the NFA, and a slew of other laws. But they take time and money to argue.
...and justices who respect the Constitution.
Because constitutional challenges are incredibly expensive and the industry doesn't want to cut off the Golden Goose that is government contracts. Constitutional challenges in regards to the 2nd amendment have been slow & few because they're being carried out by activist organizations on shoe string budgets that really have to choose their battles.
> The 2nd Amendment protects arms ownership from all infringements. Where in the Constitution does it say you have the right to own a firearm? 2A does not say own, nor is it stated anywhere else in the Bill of Rights. The right of ownership is implied, as is the right to vote.
Keep (v): have or retain possession of Own (v): have something as one’s own; possess Is this really where we’re at? You’re going to argue a substantive difference between “keep” and “own,” but not a substantive difference between the protections conferred by 2A and those by 15A, 19A, 24A, 26A?
> Keep (v): have or retain possession of > > Own (v): have something as one’s own; possess Do you not see a difference? Having possession of a thing is not the same as owning a thing. For example: I can keep another person's car in my garage, that does not mean that I own it. > Is this really where we’re at? You’re going to argue a substantive difference between “keep” and “own,” but not a substantive difference between the protections conferred by 2A and those by 15A, 19A, 24A, 26A? I didn't say anything about the protections or compare them in any way. My only argument is that firearm ownership and voting are both implied rights, as they are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution or BoR.
Voting, along with a handful of other things, I prefer to describe as procedural entitlements than as "rights" since they only exist within the context of protections against the government. If the government didn't exist, obviously your right to vote wouldn't be infringed upon, because there would be no reason you'd need influence on government policy, because there is no government. Rather, voting is an entitlement the citizens are granted under certain contexts and rules, such that they are able to influence the direction of government.
You know how some iPhone games require internet and some don’t? It’s like that - voting is inherently a “cloud” activity you can’t tally up the votes correctly if you don’t have a voter roll you can check against
Registration doesn't mean the same thing in both phrases. Your right to vote is in those elections relevant to where you live. If you live in Arizona you can't vote in Maine. Registration is letting the local secretary of state's office know you have moved and will be voting in the local elections. It's also some theoretical requirement, but rarely worried about too much, to also let your former state know you moved away. Your right to bear arms isn't like your right to vote at all. There is nothing in regards to bearing arms that has any requirement or logical basis of the sort we see with voter registration.
Broadly, registration to vote is not (by itself) used as a way to restrict and to take away the right to vote, and is necessary for organizing and counting votes. The same is not true of registering firearms, which the majority of states has not seen the need for.
2nd Amendment relates to fending off tyranny. If the government can track your firearm ownership then a tyrannical government could know know who is more likely to resist them when shit goes down, and go after them first. It's not only a privacy concern but a liberty concern. Registering to vote determines your eligibility to participate in a democratic election. It prevents foreign interference from unqualified voters. They are apples and oranges really.
There is no general Constitutional right to vote. It doesn’t exist. Meanwhile the right to bear arms is an entranced civil liberty. So you’re comparing apples to aardvarks. https://democracyjournal.org/magazine/28/the-missing-right-a-constitutional-right-to-vote/ https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/10/19/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/01/01/opinion/think-constitution-guarantees-your-right-vote-think-again/ https://fairvote.org/archives/reform_library-right_to_vote_amendment/ https://theconversation.com/the-right-to-vote-is-not-in-the-constitution-144531
The 14th Amendment section 2 directly describes a right to vote and also mentions a crime for a bridging that right. See here "But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
And yet there’s no general right to vote in the Constitution. It doesn’t exist. I didn’t post those articles for my health. Half of them are from left leaning sources, no less, all agreeing with me.
Those articles apparently didn't read the constitution as the right to vote is right there in the 14th amendment. How do you square this section of the 14th amendment and come to the conclusion that there is no right to vote when text is right there? If the right vote doesn't exist, the state representatives can just pass a law saying there are no more elections and establish a kingdom, and there would be nothing that you could do legally. Which makes no sense as the founders did not want that. That's what they fought against. *Edited for typo
I don’t agree with you and neither do folks on the left who are trying to include a new amendment guaranteeing the right to vote. Since it doesn’t currently exist. https://fairvote.org/archives/reform_library-right_to_vote_amendment/ “CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THERE IS NOT AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO VOTE IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION While the U.S. Constitution bans the restriction of voting based on race, sex and age, it does not explicitly and affirmatively state that all U.S. citizens have a right to vote. The Supreme Court ruled in Bush v. Gore in 2000 that citizens do not have the right to vote for electors for president. States control voting policies and procedures, and as a result, we have a patchwork of inconsistent voting rules run independently by 50 states, 3,067 counties and over 13,000 voting districts, all separate and unequal. “
Im very open to being wrong, and so i went to look at the link provided, and you're right. In Bush v Gore the Supreme Court ruled that voters do not have a right to vote under the 14th amendment for electors due the following: "that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution." However, recently, we have had another ruling that somewhat contradictics this one. In trump vs. US government, "The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can not disqualify former President Donald Trump from the ballot for his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the U.S. Capitol. In an unsigned opinion, a majority of the justices held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted in the wake of the Civil War to disqualify individuals from holding office who had previously served in the federal or state government before the war but then supported the Confederacy, against candidates for federal offices. " So, which is it do states have full power or does Congress?
They have different powers and you’re comparing apples and aardvarks.
What do you mean? I thought both rulings were in regards to the 14th amendment are they not? Do you believe that states have the right to just not run elections as you can't infringe of the right to vote if you don't offer voting at all? ( as technically that option is equal to everyone)
One is talking about voting for electors, the other is talking about removing candidates from a ballot. Again, two different things.
Yes, but both cases refer to the 14th amendment to determine how a state can run it's election do they not? Choosing who is eligible for the ballot or voting for electors comes from the same source of power, which is 14th amendment. Does it not? Do states have the power to run their elections however they see fit?
A) There is no right to vote. 2) You don't just need to just register to vote, you need to register to vote in your specific voting district. You don't need to register a firearm to a location. III) There is no compelling reason for me to think I am required to register to vote in order to later disenfranchise me. Firearm registration would easily be used as a means of identifying the guns to be confiscated later, so I won't be registering anything.
>A) There is no right to vote. 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Ammendments disagree
Those do not say all citizens have a right to vote. They prohibit disenfranchisement based on various criteria.
If there's no right to vote, why is there an express problem with banning people from voting for any reason? It seems purposely obtuse to say there are protections to the ability to vote, listed in the constitution, but there isn't a right. Side note: didn't downvote you my guy, just think your opinion is wrong and expressed that
In my opinion, there isn't a problem with banning most people from voting. Only people who contribute more tax dollars than they receive deserve to have a say in how that money is spent.
I'm glad it's not up to you then
Of course you are, because you couldn't vote for a living instead of working.
WILD assumption lol
Also, why do you come here to ask conservatives questions and then downvote them? Makes no sense.
It’s getting ridiculous. They ask the questions then pull our hard earned karma thru the gutters for differing
In a democracy people have a right to vote. That right can be restricted on the basis of age or criminal convictions, but other than that the right to vote is crucial in a democracy. If the government suddenly passed laws that prevented certain groups from voting that would be a problem.
Where does it say any of that in the Constitution? Also, even if it were written there, I don't believe in either democracy or the Constitution. The idea that every moron should get enfranchisement as an 18th birthday present and that will somehow produce good governance is just as baseless and as much an example of magical thinking as the divine right of kings.
It doesn't say in the constitution that everyone has the right to vote, but it protects restriction of voting rights based on certain criteria. But just because it's not in the consitution doesn't mean it's not a right in a functioning democracy. So what do you propose instead of a democracy then? Are you an ancap or an anarchist? Or do you prefer a dictatorship? What's your solution, you tell me?
Okay, so you support "democracy" and think every person should be enfranchised for some reason. That's not written down anywhere in American law, whether you want it to be or not. The system of government I want doesn't have anything to do with whether what I wrote in point A is true.
There are American laws that deal with federal voting rights, yes. The founding fathers explicitly intended for government to derive their power "from the consent of the goverened". And so far democracy is the best system that we've come up with. It's not perfect but it's the best system so far. So tell me, what other system do you prefer over a democracy? Do you prefer a Kim Jong Un style dictatorship? Or do you only want people over a certain income to vote? Or do you want to bring back the monarchy and install a King or Queen in the US? What system do you think is better than a democracy?
I would prefer a minarchist system that only let taxpayers vote and spent the money only on a small, domestic military, courts, and the police.
Registering to vote is a necessity to ensure that elections can be conducted properly and fairly. Restrictions on voting already exists - * You must be 18 years old * You must be a US citizen * You must reside in the district you are voting in There are far more municipal and district races than there are statewide or national races. While everyone in a state votes for a senator or a governor, only the people of a specific district, burrough, parrish, or other smaller unit of government can vote in those elections. Cities and counties are often broken out by district, most states have districts for the house and senate seats, and we have federal congressional districts for the House of Representatives. In order to have any semblance of integrity, ensure that voters are selecting candidates for their districts and/or races as pertain to them specifically, and actually ensure that only people who are ALLOWED to vote do, then there must be some form of voter registration. All that being said, I do not see a registration requirement for a firearm to be an infringement on the right to own one, but to the best of my knowledge, gun registrations apply almost solely to handguns and some rifles. My state does not require registration for me to go to Walmart and buy a shotgun or a .22 rifle.
> Right to vote Someone thinks the Republic is a Democracy. It's not. The Reconstruction made that VERY clear.
A Republic is a form of democracy. The US is a representative democracy rather than a direct democracy. And as such the ability to vote should be a substantial right for any American citizen. There are age restrictions on voting and if you commit a felony you may forgo your right to vote. But aside from that all Americans should have a right to vote. Or are you suggesting that states and federal government should have the power to exclude certain groups from voting?
> Or are you suggesting that states and federal government should have the power to exclude certain groups from voting? They have. I'm all in favor of a system where only net taxpayers vote.
I could get behind that
Net Taxpayer is a completely unworkable system in the US. You'd have wild situations where an 18 year old in Nevada on a minimum wage job could be disenfranchised, while a similarly situated 18 year old in California would be allowed to vote. Not to mention, you'd have weird situations for business owners that have a string of bad years causing a loss that completely eliminates their tax burden for those years. Also, what about the truly disabled? Do you truly believe they shouldn't get a right to vote to protect their rights and interests?
> Do you truly believe I'm willing to support fully realized Heinleinism.
Why do you feel the need to obfuscate "Yes, the disabled shouldn't be allowed to vote"
If you're familiar with Heinleinism you'd know that disability is not grounds for exclusion from service in the Terran Federation. I quote: *"If you came in here, blind and paralyzed from the neck down, and were silly enough to take the oath, we'd find something equally silly for you to do. The only way you can be rejected is if the psychologists find you mentally incapable of comprehending the oath."*
It’s almost like you’re describing your politics through a hard right libertarian science fiction author so people unfamiliar with his work don’t know exactly what you’re talking about.
No, it's because long experience with many, many blue tags has taught me that if you open with *"service guarantees citizenship"*, they will assume you are an ultra-militarist, and somehow a fascist, despite the fascist formulation being *"citizenship guarantees service"*.
“Service guarantees citizenship” is not inherently fascist but like… The kind of people who like Heinlein are usually fascists with delusions of Libertarianism. The idea that a disabled person does not get a say in government unless they directly serve the government is not a liberal one.