Do 24th century Federation (Earth) citizens have the right to bear arms?

[Kamen Rider Blade]

The thing is, these questions arise for more than just phasers. You know what's enormously more dangerous? Any spacecraft with an impulse engine. Even a mere shuttlecraft crashing into a planet at a high fraction of the speed of light would have a kinetic energy comparable to the asteroid that killed the dinosaurs. One drunk driver could cause an extinction-level event. For that matter, any warp-driven ship is an antimatter bomb waiting to go off. Stardrives are incredibly dangerous things, yet we've never seen any hint of restrictions on their private ownership and use. The fact that we don't see more accidental cataclysms suggests that most Federation citizens are really, really careful and responsible, and that the exceptions are identified early and prevented from gaining control of spacecraft (though things are probably looser out on the frontier where scoundrels like Harry Mudd operate). And that suggests there are similar safeguards in place where possession of less deadly things like hand weapons are concerned.

In my head cannon for the 26th century, every Federation Planet that has a significant population (7 digits worth of population as a minimum) has Multiple Layers of Planetary Shields like the ones we saw on Star Trek Picard. When I say multiple layers, I mean a minimum of 16 layers stacked at different altitudes above ground level. Every planet in the Federation needs to be able to fight off a Alien Invasion Fleet at the drop of a button, yet still allow traffic ingress if need be from Shuttles / StarShips / Transporter signals at a controlled rate.

Every Star has layers of Sentry Satellites that are cloaked and constantly watching for any bad ships cloaked, or otherwise that might try to pull shenanigans on a Star. We don't want terrorists that use tech to artificially create a SuperNova on your local Star, that would be very bad. If it can happen in DS9, then it can happen anywhere at anytime.

Then there's StarFleet, and we need a Federation equivalent to the US Coast Guards which I've labeled as the PSG (Planetary System Guards) which specialize in patrolling around their Planetary Star System. These are off-course separate from your regular Space Police Force.

The ability to Own/Operate StarShip/Shuttle/'Space Car' should be similar to getting your private Pilots license. It takes time, but there will be more and more people who do it for business, personal, recreational, residential, or other reasons for people to own / live in space.

 

[Christopher]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation.

It was the consistent interpretation of the Supreme Court until 2008. It's well-documented in the writings of the Constitution's framers that it was what they intended. It's not my interpretation, because I'm not an expert on law or 18th-century vernacular. It's the interpretation of people far more knowledgeable of the subject than myself; I'm just relating what I've read. One should keep one's own personal opinions out of a discussion of objective reality; they just get in the way. My topic here is about what the framers of the Constitution intended the language of the Amendment to mean. That's not about me, because I wasn't alive at the time.

I believe all citizenry of good standing (Not convicted of Violent Felony's of any sort and no Violent Misdemeanors) who are of legal age should have the right to bear arms.

Again, "bear arms" as used by the Constitution's writers does not mean "own weapons." It means "wage war." It means to participate in an armed service. And if Americans want to join a well-regulated militia in defense of the security of the state, they have a clearly defined Constitutional right to do that, and they will then be able to possess weapons as part of that service, with proper training and regulation. That's what the framers intended. That does not preclude the right of private ownership of weapons, within reason, but it does not address it either. The Second Amendment is simply not about what people today misinterpret it to mean, because the language has changed since it was written.

How many times in Star Trek has "Random Crew Man" been kidnapped by Alien Force and subjugated to bad things? How many times have we heard of stories of people being kidnapped by aliens. Random stuff happens, and if them bearing arms is what they need to protect themselves from the randomness of life, so be it.

That's a faulty argument. Statistics show that private ownership of firearms puts families in more danger, not less, because they're in the constant presence of a lethal weapon, and because if there is a home invasion or something, said weapon is just as likely to be taken by the intruder and used against the family as the reverse. Also, when bystanders carry weapons, it confuses the police about who the bad guy is. Hence the "well-regulated" part. For defense to be effective, it requires training and discipline. Just owning a weapon doesn't make one a fighter. Without discipline, it makes one a danger to oneself and others.

Anyway, Starfleet officers are members of a well-regulated armed force, not civilians, so it's a bizarre analogy to make.

In my head cannon for the 26th century, every Federation Planet that has a significant population (7 digits worth of population as a minimum) has Multiple Layers of Planetary Shields like the ones we saw on Star Trek Picard.

Both Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the 2009 film established that Earth had a defense grid that an invader would have to neutralize before they could attack. But most other Trek productions have ignored the idea and given the impression that there were no such planetary defenses around Earth or other major worlds.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

When it comes to weapons that are high yield I think that, in idealistic terms, nobody's hands are the right hands. But this butts up against "reality" where phasers can be built, "atomic" weapons are considered primitive, and photon torpedoes exist.

While total disarmament may be the idealistic dream, the pragmatic response is to develop defenses that nullify the advantages of high yield weaponry.

With standard Federation sensors, you can easily scan if somebody has Photon Torpedoes or the equivalent, and those are generally left in space on your StarShip, you are not generally allowed to bring them down planetside. Personal Small Arms are fine to bear, but weapons of a higher caliber are left in space by standard rules / regulations.

How do you stop a deranged psycho from wiping out a town with a fully charged phaser?

Every House, every facility has Shields, sensors, and auto defending turrets that fire on any target that attacks it. Then you have mass produced Armed Police Droids EVERYWHERE, you can literally not walk around the street and not see one.This is on top of regular police that patrol. Don't forget every utility poll will have 360° Spherical Sensor coverage and be able to summon help to stop any random attacker.

How do you stop Federation police from taking people's property and lives, even if it's legal?

Better training of Police Officers like in Canada where they go through a far more rigourous training program for far longer. And every Biological Sapient and Sentient police officer has at least 5x other Android Police officers with them to monitor them and to back them up along with their AI powered Personal Police Hover Car. Then more civilian oversight over Police to make sure that they aren't violating the law and going over board.

How do you stop of rogue starship captain, or worse, one that's just following orders, from bombarding a planet's surface?

You have other Captains within StarFleet who will be sent to deal with anybody who goes rogue. Remember the time that Jean-Luc Picard was sent to deal with Captain Benjamin Maxwell who went rogue? What about Janeway who dealt with Ransom.

What that might look like, I don't know. I'm not sure we've seen anything like that in Star Trek.

We've seen bits and pieces, but we could certainly use more shows that show what it's like to live within the UFP as a normal person and to travel amongst the Stars as a civilian. Not just a guest aboard a StarFleet vessel.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Both Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the 2009 film established that Earth had a defense grid that an invader would have to neutralize before they could attack. But most other Trek productions have ignored the idea and given the impression that there were no such planetary defenses around Earth or other major worlds.

Yeah, I'd rather have every major planet with UFP territory that has a significant population have one.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That's a faulty argument. Statistics show that private ownership of firearms puts families in more danger, not less, because they're in the constant presence of a lethal weapon, and because if there is a home invasion or something, said weapon is just as likely to be taken by the intruder and used against the family as the reverse. Also, when bystanders carry weapons, it confuses the police about who the bad guy is. Hence the "well-regulated" part. For defense to be effective, it requires training and discipline. Just owning a weapon doesn't make one a fighter. Without discipline, it makes one a danger to oneself and others.

That's why most people who intend to own a FireArm get training. And there are plenty of statistics that are run by organizations who are Anti-2A. If you want I can bring plenty of statistics of my own, but this not the thread or conversation about IRL topics. There's no way you can sway me after all the independent research that I've done on my own.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

It was the consistent interpretation of the Supreme Court until 2008. It's well-documented in the writings of the Constitution's framers that it was what they intended. It's not my interpretation, because I'm not an expert on law or 18th-century vernacular. It's the interpretation of people far more knowledgeable of the subject than myself; I'm just relating what I've read. One should keep one's own personal opinions out of a discussion of objective reality; they just get in the way. My topic here is about what the framers of the Constitution intended the language of the Amendment to mean. That's not about me, because I wasn't alive at the time.

And I've done my own research and came to different conclusion then you or your sources.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[The Wormhole]

If anything, weapons regulations seem a lot more lax in Star Trek than they are in the real world. For example, a weapons locker in Star Trek is simply a panel hanging in the walls which anyone can access and obtain a phaser. As opposed to the actual military, where a weapons locker is an actual location which is locked and guarded where a person has to fill out paperwork and before obtaining a firearm. Considering a phaser in the wrong hands can in a worst case scenario destroy the ship and in a best case kill someone on the ship, that's pretty shocking how easy it can be to obtain one.

More on topic, there are plenty of examples in the franchise to civilians owning firearms. From the farmer in Broken Bow, the woman on Setlik III who gave O'Brien her phaser to fight off Cardassians, and Picard even has phasers stashed away at his vineyard. I don't know if this counts as a right to bear arms, but it's definitely an example that firearms laws aren't particularly strict.

 

[Vger23]

Guinan has a giant rifle behind the bar on the Enterprise. And she's a private citizen.

Picard has weapons stashed all over his chateau.

Kevin Uxbridge had a weapon, but it was non functioning. That was a Federation colony.

The colony on Tau Cygni V had armed citizens.


There are lots of examples of Federation citizens having their own weaponry. I think that answers the question.

 

[Tim Thomason]

Guinan has a giant rifle behind the bar on the Enterprise. And she's a private citizen.

Picard has weapons stashed all over his chateau.

Kevin Uxbridge had a weapon, but it was non functioning. That was a Federation colony.

The colony on Tau Cygni V had armed citizens.


There are lots of examples of Federation citizens having their own weaponry. I think that answers the question.

Pretty much. Earth might have specific rules, Vulcan too, and Andoria and Risa, all regulating weaponry as their cultures and planets permit. The Federation shouldn't butt in on its member worlds freedom to regulate, or not, personal weaponry.

Federation colonies, especially the two listed here (Rana IV and Tau Cygna V, which is a lost Robinson Crusoe-type colony), oftentimes seem to have to fend for themselves, and in these cases, come up against very powerful forces that will destroy them. Cygna was forced to evacuate diplomatically, while Rana was pretty much destroyed without anyone realizing.

Giving a light hand on arms control for colonists in deep space seems warranted, just on the examples shown.

 

[at Quark's]

Guinan has a giant rifle behind the bar on the Enterprise. And she's a private citizen.

Picard has weapons stashed all over his chateau.

Kevin Uxbridge had a weapon, but it was non functioning. That was a Federation colony.

The colony on Tau Cygni V had armed citizens.

There are lots of examples of Federation citizens having their own weaponry. I think that answers the question.

That's why I specifically mentioned 24th century Earth in my question - I might imagine circumstances in deep space or 'dangerous' border colonies would call for different rules than in "paradise", in the heart of the Federation.

Of the example you mention, only Picard is supposedly on earth (haven't seen the series yet) - and him being the ex-captain of the Enterprise would hardly make him an average citizen. Even in countries with tight gun control and a permit or exemption system, high-ranking ex-members of the military would be significantly more likely to hold one of those permits than a random member of the general population.

Every House, every facility has Shields, sensors, and auto defending turrets that fire on any target that attacks it. Then you have mass produced Armed Police Droids EVERYWHERE, you can literally not walk around the street and not see one.This is on top of regular police that patrol. Don't forget every utility poll will have 360° Spherical Sensor coverage and be able to summon help to stop any random attacker.

If that were true, Paradise Lost (DS9) in which Starfleet temporarily takes over earth would barely mean a change of the status quo, just a change of hands who is doing the policing (Starfleet instead of the local police). But the way it's portrayed in that episode, just a bunch of Starfleet personnel on the street with phaser rifles doing random checks- rather light armaments compared to what you propose- are considered deeply problematic, a corruption of "paradise" and a betrayal of Federation principles, even. So I don't really buy that average life on 24th century earth would look like that.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

If that were true, Paradise Lost (DS9) in which Starfleet temporarily takes over earth would barely mean a change of the status quo, just a change of hands who is doing the policing (starfleet instead of the local police). But the way it's portrayed in that episode, it is considered deeply problematic, a corruption of "paradise" and a betrayal of Federation principles, even. So I don't really buy that average life on 24th century would look like that.

That's why my head cannon is set for the start of the 26th century, where security is improved in every way.

No more random StarShips crashing into down town San Francisco. No more surprise alien attacks. Random citizens can't just hurt people randomly by going nuts and going on a rampage.

 

[valkyrie013]

Well, for an example, Even though the 24th century is "Enlightened" and crime is Low.. not Zero.. There are still plenty of instances of crimes that would maybe require personal protection
Domestic: You have a girlfreind/boyfriend/alienfriend.. that gets jelious and wants to harm/kill you.. even in the 24th century, when seconds count.. police are still Many seconds or minutes away.. I mean.. you still have to call them, not like there watching your every move in a 1984 movie way..
Hunting: Yes hunting will still exist in the 24th century, if just a population control type of thing, but some will still want to hunt.
Other Crimes: Sorry, even in enlightened society, there is still crime, robbery, rape etc.. not as prevalent,, but still going to happen.

And other instances where a weapon would come in handy. Now as I said, a permanent stun setting so like a "Semi Auto instead of and Automatic like today's laws" or so..

Spoiler: 2nd amd argue

Chris, we just have to agree to disagree on your interpretation of what you read, I can also cite a number of papers etc. that would "Prove" the opposite of what you wrote a natural right of Self Defense. I understand this is a contentious issue, and won't argue on it. Just pointing out that this thread isn't for this argument as the original poster intended.

 

[eschaton]

It probably is the case, thinking about it more deeply, that everyone in the Federation is allowed to have a weapon. However, its also probably the case that 99%+ of people in the core worlds outside of those on active duty in Starfleet would see owning one as being something ridiculous. I mean as noted.

1. Trust in the Federation is very high - so the whole original reason for the Second Amendment in the U.S. - an armed civilian population to protect against the possibility of tyranny - is antiquated.
2. Crime is incredibly low, because people are more "evolved."
3. The existence of the replicator/cheap energy means that material want has been eliminated. No one is ever going to mug you or rob your house.
4. Arguably the existence of holodecks and the like means those who need an outlet for some of their nastier inclinations have a way to play act them, so things like rape should be less common.
5. It's canonical in Trek that hunting - and needlessly killing animals for food in general - is for the most part frowned upon. Again, the rise of the replicator, which allows for "guilt-free" meat probably changed dramatically how many humans look at hunting.

Of course "crimes of passion" can still exist, but relatively few people buy a gun to protect themselves from their husband or wife. That basically leaves target shooting and the like, but you can do that at a holodeck as well, so it's hard to see why the "real thing" is needed.

All of this leads me to think there's probably a strong cultural taboo against private weapon ownership, even if there isn't a law against it. Kinda like how people who own swords now are generally seen as some sort of weird nerds.

 

[Sakonna]

That's why I specifically mentioned 24th century Earth in my question - I might imagine circumstances in deep space or 'dangerous' border colonies would call for different rules than in "paradise", in the heart of the Federation.

Of the example you mention, only Picard is supposedly on earth (haven't seen the series yet) - and him being the ex-captain of the Enterprise would hardly make him an average citizen. Even in countries with tight gun control and a permit or exemption system, high-ranking ex-members of the military would be significantly more likely to hold one of those permits than a random member of the general population.

Well, it's not direct evidence of what happens on Earth, but this brought to mind the early DS9 scenes in "Past Prologue" and "Captive Pursuit" that established no weapons are allowed on the Promenade (and presumably other civilian areas of the station?), unless you are a station officer.

DS9, especially in season 1, was quite explicitly Trek's dangerous frontier town. If civilians under Federation jurisdiction in those circumstances are not allowed weapons, that may suggest civilians on Earth aren't either.

 

[Sakonna]

It probably is the case, thinking about it more deeply, that everyone in the Federation is allowed to have a weapon. However, its also probably the case that 99%+ of people in the core worlds outside of those on active duty in Starfleet would see owning one as being something ridiculous.

I think this nails it, especially for the Berman-era shows. I could perhaps see the attitudes shifting some come "Picard" days.

A minor detail that really struck me from "Picard" was

Spoiler

Agnes Jurati's surprise at the mere thought of traveling off Earth, when Oh first suggests it to her. She seems to think that is just a crazy and deeply risky thing to do, and any sensible people would remain on Earth. Meanwhile, 20 years earlier, the attitude seems totally reversed... people fly all over the galaxy with ease, Joseph Sisko is seen as quite the eccentric throwback for never leaving Earth, etc.

 

[Forbin]

Well... the modern understanding of the phrase "right to bear arms" is greatly distorted, due to shifts in language and deliberate propagandistic misinterpretations. The Second Amendment specifically says:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

First off, in formal usage, the phrase "the people" -- note the definite article -- does not refer to individual persons, but to the populace as a whole, the collective citizenry, as in "We the People of the United States." Second, "bear arms" does not mean "own guns." It's an archaic military term meaning to wage war.

So as originally intended, the Second Amendment was never about private ownership of firearms. It was meant to establish the right of the states to maintain standing armed forces, something that was not commonplace in those days. (It wasn't until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled that it protected private gun ownership, and that ruling has been criticized by many jurists for overturning centuries of precedent.) So "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is fulfilled by the existence of "a well regulated militia," i.e. a permanent armed force of professional soldiers dedicated to the security of the state. At the time, that was envisioned as something like state National Guard units, but since then the US military has taken over that role. In the Federation, the people have a well-regulated, armed Starfleet to "bear arms" (wage war) when necessary to defend their security, and thus their "right to bear arms" is indeed fulfilled by its existence.

Well, you're totally wrong, that's a clearly anti-gun liberal rationalization, but this isn't the Neutral Zone, the OP asked us not to go down this rabbit hole, and you shouldn't have even written this post here. :/

 

[Forbin]

It was the consistent interpretation of the Supreme Court until 2008. It's well-documented in the writings of the Constitution's framers that it was what they intended. It's not my interpretation, because I'm not an expert on law or 18th-century vernacular. It's the interpretation of people far more knowledgeable of the subject than myself; I'm just relating what I've read. One should keep one's own personal opinions out of a discussion of objective reality; they just get in the way. My topic here is about what the framers of the Constitution intended the language of the Amendment to mean. That's not about me, because I wasn't alive at the time.




Again, "bear arms" as used by the Constitution's writers does not mean "own weapons." It means "wage war." It means to participate in an armed service. And if Americans want to join a well-regulated militia in defense of the security of the state, they have a clearly defined Constitutional right to do that, and they will then be able to possess weapons as part of that service, with proper training and regulation. That's what the framers intended. That does not preclude the right of private ownership of weapons, within reason, but it does not address it either. The Second Amendment is simply not about what people today misinterpret it to mean, because the language has changed since it was written.




That's a faulty argument. Statistics show that private ownership of firearms puts families in more danger, not less, because they're in the constant presence of a lethal weapon, and because if there is a home invasion or something, said weapon is just as likely to be taken by the intruder and used against the family as the reverse. Also, when bystanders carry weapons, it confuses the police about who the bad guy is. Hence the "well-regulated" part. For defense to be effective, it requires training and discipline. Just owning a weapon doesn't make one a fighter. Without discipline, it makes one a danger to oneself and others.

Anyway, Starfleet officers are members of a well-regulated armed force, not civilians, so it's a bizarre analogy to make.




Both Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the 2009 film established that Earth had a defense grid that an invader would have to neutralize before they could attack. But most other Trek productions have ignored the idea and given the impression that there were no such planetary defenses around Earth or other major worlds.

Stop. Stop spouting liberal political dogma outside TNZ. This is not the place for a gun debate. Start it in TNZ if you must.

 

[BK613]

Since other aspects of Trek is an age of sail thing I'm for Fed citizens having a "common law" right to defend themselves(and by extension, their colony and the Federation) with weapons.
As William Blackstone wrote in his commentaries on British common law in 1785:

Spoiler: pg 133-34 (St. George Tucker ed., 1803)

The right of his majesty's Protestant subjects, to have arms for their own defence, and to use them for lawful purposes, is most clear and undeniable. It seems, indeed, to be considered, by the ancient laws of this kingdom, not only as a right, but as a duty; for all the subjects of the realm, who are able to bear arms, are bound to be ready, at all times, to assist the sheriff, and other civil magistrates, in the execution of the laws and the preservation of the public peace. And that right, which every Protestant most unquestionably possesses, individually, may, and in many cases must, be exercised collectively, is likewise a point which I conceive to be most clearly established by the authority of judicial decisions and ancient acts of parliament, as well as by reason and common sense

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

anti-gun liberal

Those don't always go together.

 

[Forbin]

Those don't always go together.

That's true, thank you for pointing that out. I should avoid broad-stroke categorization.