SCOTUS considering Bianchi v Frosh/Duncan v Bonta the turning point for AW/magazine ban?

CapnMac said:

And there was a great deal of furor at the time that time to vote on amendments had expired when the vote was taken.

Click to expand...

Regardless of the flawed process up on Capitol Hill, the bill was presented to Reagan to sign, or to veto. He consulted with the NRA as to what to do. The NRA told him to sign, because they had too much political capital invested in McClure-Volkmer (FOPA) and they thought they could get the Hughes part overturned. Boy, were they wrong on that! I personally feel that the FOPA reforms were marginal and were outweighed by the machine gun freeze. Reagan should have vetoed. The reforms could have been enacted later, without Hughes. This is when I started to sour on the NRA.

Charlie Martinez said:

The problem with passing legislation about assault weapons is that lawmakers still haven't clearly or better said accurately, defined what an assault weapon is. I believe they'll get around to it shortly after they figure out what a woman and a man are.

Click to expand...

That long some already have one foot in the grave as it is.

While I understand the Construct under which all these points are being made, and hope that we are successful, in reality, categorizing weapons as “in common use” and suitable for militia / military use is silly. Who cares about what “kind” of weapons we have? Or whether they are in “common use”. So what?

That doesn’t matter one whit. Technology marches on. All that does is play into the hands of those who try to parse words and define what the meaning of “is” is.

kwguy said:

....

That doesn’t matter one whit. Technology marches on. All that does is play into the hands of those who try to parse words and define what the meaning of “is” is

Click to expand...

Apt analogy with "is," per President Clinton, but the real problem is the constant morphing with time and viewpoint of so many words in the firearms discussion.

"Control the language, and you control the issue."

Consider "assault weapon." How did that morph semantically, and then technically, from full-auto individual "walking fire" battle weapons to any AR-style "ugly" black rifle?

And I, for only one native English speaker, do not understand how "registration" is not an infringement. Even if it is supposedly only for taxation purposes. I sometimes wish they'd added "or abridged," as in the First Amendment.

So, after constant use and misuse, the terms "registered," etc., have become normalized in the firearms discussions. I still cringe when I hear "registered" or "registration" with respect to firearms in TV and movie scripts... as if it were a normal and expected thing everywhere in the US.

Truly: "Control the language, and you control the issue."

Terry, 230RN

NOTE: The $200 tax stamp of 1934 would be equivalent to somewhere between $2600 and $4,100 nowadays. You think you'd buy a suppressor if you had to buy a $2600 tax stamp for it? Let alone $4100?

That, my friend, is proscriptive taxation... therefore prohibition.... I call that an infringement. What would you call it?

3% overall annual inflation, 88 years = $2696
3.5% overall annual inflation, 88 years =$4128

Pick your favorite overall annual inflation (OAI) rate.
Present cost = ((1+OAI as a decimal)^88) X $200

230RN said:

Apt analogy with "is," per President Clinton, but the real problem is the constant morphing with time and viewpoint of so many words in the firearms discussion.

"Control the language, and you control the issue."

Consider "assault weapon." How did that morph semantically, and then technically, from full-auto individual "walking fire" battle weapons to any AR-style "ugly" black rifle?

And I, for only one native English speaker, do not understand how "registration" is not an infringement. Even if it is supposedly only for taxation purposes. I sometimes wish they'd added "or abridged," as in the First Amendment.

So, after constant use and misuse, the terms "registered," etc., have become normalized in the firearms discussions. I still cringe when I hear "registered" or "registration" with respect to firearms in TV and movie scripts... as if it were a normal and expected thing everywhere in the US.

Truly: "Control the language, and you control the issue."

Terry, 230RN

Click to expand...

Exactly!

I believe there once was a proposal to index the transfer tax. It got quietly dropped.

kwguy said:

While I understand the Construct under which all these points are being made, and hope that we are successful, in reality, categorizing weapons as “in common use” and suitable for militia / military use is silly. Who cares about what “kind” of weapons we have? Or whether they are in “common use”. So what?

Click to expand...

We have to build upon the existing gun jurisprudence. These terms are important because they are used in the leading Supreme Court gun cases, and, indeed, in the 2nd Amendment itself. These things are not being argued in a vacuum.

Jim Watson said:

I believe there once was a proposal to index the transfer tax. It got quietly dropped.

Click to expand...

That would be an element if the NFA were ever legislatively "fixed." It would not be an element in a Supreme Court case examining the NFA.

The reason the NFA is relevant to this thread is that "assault weapons" and machine guns are intimately related. I don't see how the Supreme Court can rule on "assault weapons" without also considering the NFA.

AlexanderA said:

We have to build upon the existing gun jurisprudence. These terms are important because they are used in the leading Supreme Court gun cases, and, indeed, in the 2nd Amendment itself. These things are not being argued in a vacuum.

Click to expand...

Yeah I get that, but arguing about the difference between an AR and M4 as it pertains to the 2A is silly. I can’t wait until energy weapons or rail guns become practical, so we can blow off these “firearm” laws, that way every little parsed “wordy word” and legally contrived concept about sears, full auto blah blah can go the way of the dodo.

The 2A says nothing about guns, only “arms”. It’s almost like those who wrote it meant to leave room for improvement, as well as maintaining the ability to keep old stuff.

kwguy said:

Yeah I get that, but arguing about the difference between an AR and M4 as it pertains to the 2A is silly. I can’t wait until energy weapons or rail guns become practical, so we can blow off these “firearm” laws, that way every little parsed “wordy word” and legally contrived concept about sears, full auto blah blah can go the way of the dodo.

The 2A says nothing about guns, only “arms”. It’s almost like those who wrote it meant to leave room for improvement, as well as maintaining the ability to keep old stuff.

Click to expand...

The definition of firearm will be changed by congress to include electromagnetic and direct energy weapons the moment somebody uses one to commit a murder

General Geoff said:

The definition of firearm will be changed by congress to include electromagnetic and direct energy weapons the moment somebody uses one to commit a murder

Click to expand...

Well, not the “moment”, hopefully. Seeing as how it took almost 100 years for us to get to the point of picking the pepper out of flypoop with conventional firearms, discussing stupid nonsense like sears, handgrips, and shoulder things that go up, maybe their inefficiency will translate to that, and legislatively they won’t be able to differentiate between a rail gun and a remote control.

Or, we’ll be prosecuted for having a gun shaped pop tart. We really are that dumb, so who knows?

Well, seems to me, right or wrong, that there was a "vacuum" around the 2A. At least until people started parsing "well-regulated" from "well-trained and equipped" (as in "the Regular Army") to mean "well-trammeled and restricted."

It's that kind of lingo-tinkered stuff that changed the entire meaning of "militia" to the nonsense we have today, where the meaning of "militia" got changed legislatively.

It's the accumulation of these kinds of legalistic tinkering which has destroyed the beautiful "vacuum" surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as some of the others.

As I've said before, the Second Amendment is one of the shortest and most concise proscriptions in the Constitution, which makes me believe they really, really meant it, no kidding parsing around.

"Control the language and you control the issue."

Terry, 230RN

REF (Preamble to the Bill Of Rights, in part):

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Parse that.

230RN said:

Well, seems to me, right or wrong, that there was a "vacuum" around the 2A. At least until people started parsing "well-regulated" from "well-trained and equipped" (as in "the Regular Army") to mean "well-trammeled and restricted."

It's that kind of lingo-tinkered stuff that changed the entire meaning of "militia" to the nonsense we have today, where the meaning of "militia" got changed legislatively.

It's the accumulation of these kinds of legalistic tinkering which has destroyed the beautiful "vacuum" surrounding the Second Amendment, as well as some of the others.

As I've said before, the Second Amendment is one of the shortest and most concise proscriptions in the Constitution, which makes me believe they really, really meant it, no kidding parsing around.

"Control the language and you control the issue."

Terry, 230RN

REF (Preamble to the Bill Of Rights, in part):

"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."

Parse that.

Click to expand...

Perfect!!!

JohnKSa said:

A few differences, yes. Minor differences? Not the way the laws are currently written. Build an AR-15 in your garage--no problem. Build an M-16 in your garage--go to federal prison. That's not a minor difference.

Click to expand...

I'm under the impression that the latter is 3 rnd burst fire so that makes it an NFA thing

Appalachiannative said:

I'm under the impression that the latter is 3 rnd burst fire so that makes it an NFA thing

Click to expand...

The 3-round burst has nothing to do with the NFA definition. The original M16 didn't have it. The question is whether more than one shot can be fired with a single function of the trigger.

Remember, the semiautomatic AR-15 came on the market (and was approved by the ATF as not being a machine gun) in 1964. That was before the Gun Control Act of 1968, which redefined machine guns by inserting the "readily convertible" language.

I have no doubt that if the AR-15 came before the ATF for approval today, it would be ruled to be a machine gun, because of the ease of conversion. (All that is needed is to slightly widen the fire control pocket, drill one hole, and install a few readily available parts.) But the ATF is bound, at least politically, by its prior holding. Suddenly declaring millions of guns to be contraband simply won't fly.

AlexanderA said:

Suddenly declaring millions of guns to be contraband simply won't fly.

Click to expand...

This may be a Hold My Beer event. Consider the bump stock, pistol brace, and forced reset trigger. True, all are accessories that can be removed and still leave you with a functioning gun, but I don't think they are afraid of broad prohibitions.

AlexanderA said:

The 3-round burst has nothing to do with the NFA definition. The original M16 didn't have it. The question is whether more than one shot can be fired with a single function of the trigger.

Remember, the semiautomatic AR-15 came on the market (and was approved by the ATF as not being a machine gun) in 1964. That was before the Gun Control Act of 1968, which redefined machine guns by inserting the "readily convertible" language.

I have no doubt that if the AR-15 came before the ATF for approval today, it would be ruled to be a machine gun, because of the ease of conversion. (All that is needed is to slightly widen the fire control pocket, drill one hole, and install a few readily available parts.) But the ATF is bound, at least politically, by its prior holding. Suddenly declaring millions of guns to be contraband simply won't fly.

Click to expand...

They managed it with bump fire stocks but no with binary triggers. Although here in NC those are band

JohnKSa said:

That's not to say that one couldn't build an AR-15 differently to make conversion easier and get into BATF trouble.

Click to expand...

Colt started assembling guns with full-auto bolt carriers, and that was OK. Then certain lower-receiver manufacturers started making their lowers with the wide FCG pocket, and that was OK. Now the only marker of an NFA lower is the existence of the "third hole." The conclusion that I take from this is that the ATF is very hesitant to rock the boat.

These are not the magazines you are looking for. Move along.

I think the only way any Article Four, pro-Freedom, Bill of Rights for The People rulings will end is with court-packing. If the courts side with The People, then the political classes will pack them with anti-Constitution communists and political elitists.

kwguy said:

Yeah I get that, but arguing about the difference between an AR and M4 as it pertains to the 2A is silly. I can’t wait until energy weapons or rail guns become practical, so we can blow off these “firearm” laws, that way every little parsed “wordy word” and legally contrived concept about sears, full auto blah blah can go the way of the dodo.

The 2A says nothing about guns, only “arms”. It’s almost like those who wrote it meant to leave room for improvement, as well as maintaining the ability to keep old stuff.

Click to expand...

If/when we change over to a new system like that, I suspect the thing that will go the way of the dodo will be civilians having modern/contemporary weapons. We will be allowed to keep centerfire weapons (but will not be allowed to purchase ammo components, due to environmental concerns etc). Lethal EM weapons will be off-limits, and converting a non-lethal to lethal will be highly illegal.

The Powers That Be will figure out a way to word things, so it happens seamlessly... we will never have a chance to get one, so it's easier to make illegal. You're not taking something away from a citizen, just preventing them from having it. The general public doesn't fight that nearly as hard.

One part of the Heller decision I don't like is the "in common use" test. Moving forward, how does something new become "in common use" if it can be banned while still "novel"?