"Machine guns" and the 2nd Amendment

JTHunter said:

Well, now you can tell those antis to "stuff it" ...

Click to expand...

Heck, JT, I've been telling'em to "stuff it" (more or less ) for decades without even knowing about the Puckle gun.

The Puckle Gun was not a "machine gun" as we understand it today. Even the Gatling Gun, which might by some be considered a modernized version of the Puckle gun, is not a machine gun by today's understanding.
Sorry, nice try. I agree with the OP's premise that the founders understood that technology advances, but I'm afraid that the liberals who disdain the second amendment will not be moved or impressed with this argument.

Private citizens had cannon and armed ships. Merchant vessels carried weapons to deal with pirate ships, and a cannon filled with grapeshot as was often used fires more projectiles than machinegun with a full magazine at once.
In fact the government would authorize such private citizens and companies with letters of marqee to get even more involved than just self defense some of the time. The rest of the time they carried these weapons of war for self defense.

The government pretty obviously intended to limit who were citizens while giving those citizens the power to resist tyranny. The opposite of what government does today in letting everyone with all different types of morals and values become citizens, but then restricting what they can have and trying to limit their power.

Tommygunn said:

The Puckle Gun was not a "machine gun" as we understand it today. Even the Gatling Gun, which might by some be considered a modernized version of the Puckle gun, is not a machine gun by today's understanding.
Sorry, nice try. I agree with the OP's premise that the founders understood that technology advances, but I'm afraid that the liberals who disdain the second amendment will not be moved or impressed with this argument.

Click to expand...

Anyone who says our founding fathers didn’t understand technological development didn’t pay attention in history class. Ben Franklin was an inventor. He was a mentor to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson likewise was an inventor. James Madison was friends with Jefferson and they didn’t live that far. Washington was a General and understood war. Hamilton and many others fought in the war. Sam Adams was a smuggler and tax evader amongst other things. The list goes on and on.

The left doesn’t like them not because some were slave owners as some claim, but because of the collective brilliance that they had that gave us so much freedom. Freedom that many on the left hate.

GBExpat said:

Heck, JT, I've been telling'em to "stuff it" (more or less ) for decades without even knowing about the Puckle gun.

Click to expand...

My man.

I prefer the counter-statement that using that line of thinking, then the First should be limited to quill pens and screw presses.

Amazingly, we managed to survive over 140 years without federal regulations on automatic weapons.
Wasn't until a bunch of War Veterans camped out in DC demanding that their "betters" make good on their promises that we saw legislation enacted (and not legislation to give the veterans their due, either).
It's about control.
And the rule of the 2.5% over the rest of us.

Funny thing about the Constitution. It clearly references "arms" and not "muskets." Ever wonder why? The founding fathers knew that innovation always creates new things and they didn't want to limit the boundaries of the 2A.

CapnMac said:

Amazingly, we managed to survive over 140 years without federal regulations on automatic weapons.
Wasn't until a bunch of War Veterans camped out in DC demanding that their "betters" make good on their promises that we saw legislation enacted (and not legislation to give the veterans their due, either).
It's about control.
And the rule of the 2.5% over the rest of us.

Click to expand...

If you are talking about the bonus Marchers, I seem to recall that the bonuses had been promised for sometime in the future and that time had not yet come at the time of the bonus Marchers.

ilbob said:

If you are talking about the bonus Marchers, I seem to recall that the bonuses had been promised for sometime in the future and that time had not yet come at the time of the bonus Marchers.

Click to expand...

That is true, but not really any justification for the government to "Waco" them ....

Citing the "Puckle Gun" as a machine gun is laughable. Please, let's not bring this up in a 2nd Amendment discussion. (Did you know that Puckle, in his patent application, specified round bullets for Christians and square bullets for "heathens"?)

On the other hand, actual machine guns really are (or should be) protected by the 2nd Amendment. Selective-fire weapons are the standard weapons of the infantry, and thus would be the proper equipment of the militia. Of course, Justice Scalia, writing in the Heller case, didn't agree with this -- but he was wrong.

Tommygunn said:

Even the Gatling Gun, which might by some be considered a modernized version of the Puckle gun, is not a machine gun by today's understanding.

Click to expand...

The ATF has ruled that a crank-operated Gatling gun is not a machine gun. However, add an electric motor to the crank, with a solenoid trigger, and it becomes a machine gun. (That's exactly what an M134 Minigun is.)

Under the "readily restorable" clause of the machine gun definition, even crank-operated Gatling guns could be held to be machine guns (reversing the current ATF position) if a future Executive decided to do so (using the bump stock precedent). Heck, by the same token, all semiautomatic AR-15's could be held to be machine guns, since they could be altered in a few minutes in a "well-equipped machine shop." The legal groundwork is there -- we're only one or two elections away from this actually happening.

What we need is a Supreme Court decision that at least "clarifies" the Heller case and restores the reasoning of U.S. v. Miller. The Militia Clause, once again, needs to be given due weight.

It's a game of whack-a-mole to keep trying to meet or skirt the government's definition of what they graciously allow us to own. Don't play their game.

AlexanderA said:

The ATF has ruled that a crank-operated Gatling gun is not a machine gun. However, add an electric motor to the crank, with a solenoid trigger, and it becomes a machine gun. (That's exactly what an M134 Minigun is.)

Under the "readily restorable" clause of the machine gun definition, even crank-operated Gatling guns could be held to be machine guns (reversing the current ATF position) if a future Executive decided to do so (using the bump stock precedent). Heck, by the same token, all semiautomatic AR-15's could be held to be machine guns, since they could be altered in a few minutes in a "well-equipped machine shop." The legal groundwork is there -- we're only one or two elections away from this actually happening.

What we need is a Supreme Court decision that at least "clarifies" the Heller case and restores the reasoning of U.S. v. Miller. The Militia Clause, once again, needs to be given due weight.

Click to expand...

You're right about the Gatling re: electric motors. I was, of course, refering to Dr. Gatling's famous weapon in its original condition.

With regards to ARs being readily converted, I think it's a bit more complicated than it used to be, since the full auto trigger group won't fit in the AR15 lower without milling it out, and, IIRC, providing for different cross pins to hold it.
Many semiautos could, I think, be converted to full auto by a clever tinkerer, some perhaps more easily than others. John Moses Browning, perhaps the cleverest, took an 1873 Winchester lever action and made it full auto to test a principle. Obviously few people are that inventive, and today a lever action rifle would probably never be considered a good platform for such an illegal alteration.

Despite the ease of altering some weapons to full auto, I say this: FIGHT THE CHANGE! Resist further encroachments on our rights. The left will shift goal-posts to best advantage their aim, no matter! RESIST RESIST RESIST!

It would not be real hard to add a solenoid or a motorized cam to the trigger of any semiautomatic firearm and electrically actuate it to fire more than one round with a single press of a button. In fact it would be substantially easier than any of the more common methods that involve machining. I could probably rig something up in a few minutes if I had the parts handy.

Not often noted but the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not outlaw machine guns as it was understood then that the 2nd Amendment protected arms ownership. Instead, the Feds instituted a very high (at that time) transfer tax. The tax was held to be "constitutional" where the prohibition would not have been. The case of U.S. vs. Miller reinforced the protection of "military" type firearms being protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Tommygunn said:

With regards to ARs being readily converted, I think it's a bit more complicated than it used to be, since the full auto trigger group won't fit in the AR15 lower without milling it out, and, IIRC, providing for different cross pins to hold it.

Click to expand...

The narrower opening in the lower receiver was a feature of the semiautomatic AR-15 since it was first approved in 1963 or 1964. Milling that out, and drilling the "third hole," are pretty simple tasks.

The original approval of the AR-15 semi design by the ATF was before the "readily restorable" language was added to the NFA by the GCA of 1968. Under the law as amended in 1968, I don't believe the AR-15 would have been approved. Or at least it would have been an open question. Certainly that could be revisited now under a hostile Administration. The big question would be what to do with the millions of existing AR's.

Curator said:

Not often noted but the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not outlaw machine guns as it was understood then that the 2nd Amendment protected arms ownership. Instead, the Feds instituted a very high (at that time) transfer tax. The tax was held to be "constitutional" where the prohibition would not have been. The case of U.S. vs. Miller reinforced the protection of "military" type firearms being protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

The Hughes Amendment of 1986 is, technically, a flat prohibition. It has been upheld as being constitutional. In the light of the Heller case, it is doubtful that Miller is still good law. Justice Scalia seemed to indicate that machine guns would not be protected.

AlexanderA said:

The narrower opening in the lower receiver was a feature of the semiautomatic AR-15 since it was first approved in 1963 or 1964. Milling that out, and drilling the "third hole," are pretty simple tasks.

The original approval of the AR-15 semi design by the ATF was before the "readily restorable" language was added to the NFA by the GCA of 1968. Under the law as amended in 1968, I don't believe the AR-15 would have been approved. Or at least it would have been an open question. Certainly that could be revisited now under a hostile Administration. The big question would be what to do with the millions of existing AR's.

Click to expand...

I'm tending to believe it would be an open question. I think its probably a bit late to worry about that particular method, since the Florida school-shooting it seems our antagonists seem more interested in pursuing the diminution of our 2A rights through an assault-weapons ban, possibly confiscation (a questionable proposition but it's out there) and, at the extremes, a repeal of the second amendment itself.
Milling out lowers and re drilling pin holes might be easy .... if you had a machine shop with the right equipment. While I'm sure these exisf, I don't have one.
Likewise, a simple kit available in the 1940s provided a simple addition to the military M-1 carbine that converted it to full auto fire. For years anyone could own the kit, as long as it wasn't installed. This was changed, and now you simply cannot own the kit unless you have that cute little stamp thingie and the accompanying paper.


And if one is really a "go-getter," one could even find out how Mr. Browning altered that ol' 73 Winnie to full auto and remachine that!

Curator said:

Not often noted but the National Firearms Act of 1934 did not outlaw machine guns as it was understood then that the 2nd Amendment protected arms ownership. Instead, the Feds instituted a very high (at that time) transfer tax. The tax was held to be "constitutional" where the prohibition would not have been. The case of U.S. vs. Miller reinforced the protection of "military" type firearms being protected under the 2nd Amendment.

Click to expand...

IIRC, the SCOTUS Miller decision really didn't address the Constitutionality of the NFA very well. The solicitor general, appearing alone, since neither defendant appeared, and no legal counsel appeared, essentially read in the case.
All laws are presumptively constitutional. Since SCOTUS never declared the NFA constitutional, it remains in effect. Miller is a bad case but it's still ..... "there."
In another thread on this forum, someone provided a link to a great article on the Miller decision, recounting all the shenanigans. I'd link to it ... but I cannot remember exactly where it is ..

In the early 30's, when NFA was written and enacted, most Armys had bolt action rifles and belt fed machine guns.
Millers case was about a sawed off shotgun and its use as a military weapon of war, and it was deemed ''not'', and therefore not protected by 2nd Amendment Rights.(IIRC)
Surely there were a few semi's and light machine guns in the US, as general issue, the M1 Garand had yet to be refined and adopted, so the norm then was what it was.

The F.F. didn't say musket and pistols, they said "arms" ... And they said it for reasons mostly explained in the Federalist Papers. Washington, Jefferson and a few others adamantly believed individuals should be armed and capable of overthrowing the same type of tyrannical government they had fled.

For anyone to say the F.F. couldn't have fathomed the the kind of weapons we have now, are probably correct ... But the F.F. did see advancements in their lives and for them (the F.F.) to think that advancements wouldn't continue is redicilious ... our F.F. were not morons!