Time for SCOTUS to step into the fray

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Constitution states that the people have the right and moral obligation to overthrow their government in the case it becomes oppressive or tyrannical.
Whoa. Nothing in the Constitution states that. You are confusing it with some of the insurrectionist writings of the Founders, including the Declaration of Independence (which is not operative law). The closest the Constitution comes is in providing a peaceful means of amending itself.

I generally agree with the rest of your post.
 
Whoa. Nothing in the Constitution states that. You are confusing it with some of the insurrectionist writings of the Founders, including the Declaration of Independence (which is not operative law). The closest the Constitution comes is in providing a peaceful means of amending itself.

I generally agree with the rest of your post.
It has been a long time since I went through the text of the Constitution, so I might be getting something mixed up.
 
I very strongly disagree with any interpretations of the 2A that attempt to justify personal ownership of explosives, crew-served weapons, etc.

You know, it would be rather pointless for Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution) if the founders didn't expect civilians to own cannons (crew served weapons which could, and often did, utilize explosive shells) at the time the Constitution was adopted and the 2nd Amendment was ratified. It's rather hard to take an unarmed schooner out to sea and capture enemy merchant vessels.

Your disagreement with such interpretations does not align with the historical record.
 
Only the relatively high price of procuring (and the relative scarcity) of crew-served weapons keeps them out of use in crimes
That is an artifact of NFA 1934.

Before NFA, crew-served weapons were common and inexpensive. Bannermann was selling 1" (25x120mm) Nordenfelt QF Quick Firing) Naval guns by mail order. Right next to various galloper and mountain guns, and even some high-velocity 20mm cannon.

The whole idea that MG & crew-served weapons are "rare" and "expensive" is an artifact of 84 years of NFA, the 50 years of GCA 68, and the 32 years of post-Hughes regulation.

Quite literally, fifty years ago, felons dd not have lifetime prohibitions against gun ownership (except while incarcerated and/or in custody). The US survived more than 170 years without "Prohibited Person" requirements.

This is the insidious nature of infringing regulation. We in the RKBA community have been "conditioned" (for want of a better term) to that "we" constantly have to justify that "we" are law-abiding. Why do gun owners not get a presumption of innocence? Because the laws have enshirned a notion that all ownership is illegal, excepting those narrow definitions permitted under the law.

So, we have been forced to accept a "prior restraint" to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. Much as we have "accepted" prior restraint on 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment rights as well.

We have been "boxed in" on the 2nd, we are forced to argue about the weapons and not the rights.
 
The holding of the Heller decision was that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to keep and bear arms for all traditional lawful purposes, including keeping an operable handgun in the home for self-defense (the issue in the Heller decision).

The anti-gunners want to take the example as the only allowed.

Kinda like their reading of the exemplar in the 2A itself (a well regulated militia) as the only reason the right of the people should not be infringed.

They always go for the most restrictive reading.
 
Last edited:
That is an artifact of NFA 1934.

Before NFA, crew-served weapons were common and inexpensive. Bannermann was selling 1" (25x120mm) Nordenfelt QF Quick Firing) Naval guns by mail order. Right next to various galloper and mountain guns, and even some high-velocity 20mm cannon.

The whole idea that MG & crew-served weapons are "rare" and "expensive" is an artifact of 84 years of NFA, the 50 years of GCA 68, and the 32 years of post-Hughes regulation.

Quite literally, fifty years ago, felons dd not have lifetime prohibitions against gun ownership (except while incarcerated and/or in custody). The US survived more than 170 years without "Prohibited Person" requirements.

This is the insidious nature of infringing regulation. We in the RKBA community have been "conditioned" (for want of a better term) to that "we" constantly have to justify that "we" are law-abiding. Why do gun owners not get a presumption of innocence? Because the laws have enshirned a notion that all ownership is illegal, excepting those narrow definitions permitted under the law.

So, we have been forced to accept a "prior restraint" to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights. Much as we have "accepted" prior restraint on 4th, 5th, 6th Amendment rights as well.

We have been "boxed in" on the 2nd, we are forced to argue about the weapons and not the rights.

I don’t think society needs common private ownership of artillery pieces.
 
I don’t think society needs common private ownership of artillery pieces.
The "need" is specified right in the 2nd Amendment: the need for a well-regulated militia. Artillery would be part of the equipment of the militia. And, in 1791, the militia consisted basically of all the people. If modern society has outgrown this, the remedy is to repeal the 2nd Amendment according to the procedure specified in the constitution. Other than that, "need" has nothing to do with gun ownership. I don't literally "need" any of the guns in my collection. I still have a right to own them, unless and until the 2nd Amendment is repealed. I know people who have nice collections of artillery pieces. They are no threat to anybody.
 
The "need" is specified right in the 2nd Amendment: the need for a well-regulated militia. Artillery would be part of the equipment of the militia. And, in 1791, the militia consisted basically of all the people. If modern society has outgrown this, the remedy is to repeal the 2nd Amendment according to the procedure specified in the constitution. Other than that, "need" has nothing to do with gun ownership. I don't literally "need" any of the guns in my collection. I still have a right to own them, unless and until the 2nd Amendment is repealed. I know people who have nice collections of artillery pieces. They are no threat to anybody.

Ah, but there’s a difference between an old howitzer and an M60. One is a lot less likely than another to be used for criminal activity.
 
Ah, but there’s a difference between an old howitzer and an M60. One is a lot less likely than another to be used for criminal activity.
I have an M60. It's no more practical for use in crime than a watercooled .30, or an artillery piece. The Rambo movie notwithstanding.
 
I don’t think society needs common private ownership of artillery pieces
Yet there is an established community of entirely law-abiding owners of artillery peices, black powder and smokeless.

Not entirely common in the over-crowded metropolitan areas, certainly (barring the ACW reenactors, naturally).

No more dangerous than owning a military rifle--if needing respect for the larger range danger fan.

This is the insidious, the invidious (thanks, @Deanimator) nature of "gun control," it's about control. Of manipulating fear. To fear one thing is to engender fear in a similar thing. "Oh, we are not going after your guns, only the 'scary' guns. So, to be 'legal' you must needs be at least a little afraid of some guns. So, now, well, these other guns are also scary--you must compromise to be legal.

This moves the goal posts, we are no longer arguing oer the legality, but, instead on the "scariness."

There's a certain groundswell out there where gun owners are becoming tired of fifty years of "guilty until you prove yourself innocent at your own expense."
 
I see posts like this that we need the SCOTUS to act now! However, I think patience is a virtue,,,we don’t want the SCOTUS to get involved until we have a sure thing, a lock tight case to present,
 
I have an M60. It's no more practical for use in crime than a watercooled .30, or an artillery piece. The Rambo movie notwithstanding.
It's no less practical than a BAR, and those were plenty practical for the gangsters of the '30s. But then a Colt pocket .32 auto was equally practical.

Of course that's all beside the point, since knives, ink pens, shoes and automobiles have been a staple of criminal activity for over a century. I'm sure there are some who would ban private possession of computers due to the ease with which they facilitate the production and dissemination of child pornography.
 
You know, it would be rather pointless for Congress to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal (Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution) if the founders didn't expect civilians to own cannons (crew served weapons which could, and often did, utilize explosive shells) at the time the Constitution was adopted and the 2nd Amendment was ratified. It's rather hard to take an unarmed schooner out to sea and capture enemy merchant vessels.

Your disagreement with such interpretations does not align with the historical record.

I don’t think society needs common private ownership of artillery pieces.

Then I would suggest you mount a campaign to ratify another amendment.
 
It's no less practical than a BAR, and those were plenty practical for the gangsters of the '30s.
Nobody is going to rob a 7-11 with either a BAR or an M60. There are other, more portable alternatives available. Look at what the drug cartels are using. AFAIK they are not using heavy ordnance. Even in the 1930's, the gangsters were using Colt Monitors or cut-down BAR's..
 
Seems to me, that is a good question. The AR-15 and similar rifles are the cutting edge or first step in the weapons ban debates. As repeatedly said by many, it is a shame that Heller seems to allow the banning of such (yes, due to misinterpretation of the brilliant prose of Scalia that is malicious in intent and I know that he had to kiss up to Kennedy, blah, blah - it's the outcomes that matter as compared to worshiping and/or whining about this isn't his fault).

Banning them leads to at best, the double barrel Biden special and a SW Model 10 as the only acceptable guns for the heavily licensed and restricted home defender. Oh, the elites can have their O/U killers of Tweety Bird and the dreaded Skeet.

The prospect of resisting tyranical goverment is vitiated with such only permitted guns. Note, by tyranny - one needs to look back into the history of resistance to state sponsored or permitted racial tyranny. Unfortunately, many in biggest professional gun rights organizations (guess who), don't want to go there.
 
Another weapons system without legitimate civilian uses.
"Legitimate civilian use" is not the test under the 2nd Amendment. What exactly is "legitimate civilian use"? Hunting, sport shooting, and personal self-defense? The authors of the 2nd Amendment weren't concerned with any of those. These things simply weren't an issue in the 18th century. The test is whether a weapon is useful to the militia. I contend that a belt-fed machine gun is definitely covered by the 2nd Amendment (whereas a double-barreled shotgun or lever-action deer rifle might not be, depending on proof that such a thing is useful to the military).
 
Last edited:
I gave the 1968 Act a few years and then began asking people like TheLiberal to tell me: What gun control law has ever served to reduce the rate of violent crime where firearms were involved? Pushing a half-century with no answers, and I've posted that question within many pro-gun-control threads on various websites.

In 1985, Wright/Rossi/Daly basically answered, "None," in their book "Under The Gun". In this recent week or so, a similar answer came from a study of California's gun control laws.
 
I gave the 1968 Act a few years and then began asking people like TheLiberal to tell me: What gun control law has ever served to reduce the rate of violent crime where firearms were involved? Pushing a half-century with no answers, and I've posted that question within many pro-gun-control threads on various websites.

In 1985, Wright/Rossi/Daly basically answered, "None," in their book "Under The Gun". In this recent week or so, a similar answer came from a study of California's gun control laws.
Racially invidious gun controls aren't about crime. They're about control.

The advocates are fairly SCREAMING this today, from explicitly stated desires to stifle contrary speech, to threats of NUCLEAR WAR on the American people. And this doesn't come from people in black hoodies and balaclavas. It comes from elected officials.

Gun control is NEVER an end, ALWAYS a means. To what? They tell us every day. We can't say we weren't warned.
 
Racially invidious gun controls aren't about crime. They're about control.

The advocates are fairly SCREAMING this today, from explicitly stated desires to stifle contrary speech, to threats of NUCLEAR WAR on the American people. And this doesn't come from people in black hoodies and balaclavas. It comes from elected officials.

Gun control is NEVER an end, ALWAYS a means. To what? They tell us every day. We can't say we weren't warned.

I gave the 1968 Act a few years and then began asking people like TheLiberal to tell me: What gun control law has ever served to reduce the rate of violent crime where firearms were involved? Pushing a half-century with no answers, and I've posted that question within many pro-gun-control threads on various websites.

In 1985, Wright/Rossi/Daly basically answered, "None," in their book "Under The Gun". In this recent week or so, a similar answer came from a study of California's gun control laws.

As evidenced in the thread about Venezuela
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top