1986 Gun ban

[Tennessee Gentleman]

fiddletown,

Bravo! Very well said.

So, based on your last sentence, is repeal of the Hughes Amendment "reasonably doable" and if not now, when?

 

[Frank Ettin]

...based on your last sentence, is repeal of the Hughes Amendment "reasonably doable" and if not now, when?

As to now, I don't think so: (1) "Machine gun" just has too strong a negative connotation for too many people; (2) As you have pointed out, the "militia" argument doesn't resonate with most people and frightens them; (3) Also as you pointed out, more boring and readily available weapons adequately serve our personal defense needs; and (3) Other arguments for repeal are unlikely to be persuasive to most people.

And as for the future, I just don't see anything changing to make repeal of the Hughes Amendment a serious possibility. I could be wrong, but I'm not going to bet on it; and I won't be expecting a newly manufactured MP5 under the Christmas tree anytime soon.

 

[mack59]

All emotion has a thought or reason behind it - often an irrational thought or belief. It is true, at least in my experience, that you can't argue someone into changing a strongly felt/held position. However, you can believe it or not discuss in a nonconfrontational rational open and questioning way peoples dearly held beliefs and change them. It usually takes time and repetition but people can be led and educated to change. How do you do that - there are a number of ways none of which are exclusive - with guns you may take someone shooting - introduce them to other positive and rational people who shoot - you are thus reaching out to people around you - person to person - you listen to them - not with the idea of correcting them or waiting for them to say something you can jump on - but really listen. Instead of jumping on what they say which only makes most defensive- ask them questions - so that they can discover for themselves the illogic of their thoughts/beliefs. How do I know this can work - I was a counselor for many years and I never helped anyone by "telling" them what their problem was - they needed to discover it for themselves - thus one could tell an alcoholic that he was an alcoholic all one wanted to and one could beat him or her over the head with it, with all the evidence one wanted to, and nothing would change. But talk with them, discuss their fears and concerns and allow them the space to examine their beliefs and feelings and suddenly things would start to change. It might be simple things like providing normative information - I know a number of legislators in the Illinois statehouse that just providing the information that concealed carry is common in most states helped to begin to soften and change their position. It is a process. Ten years ago I could have said confidently that we will never have concealed carry in Illinois - now gradually support is growing year by year and eventually the previously impossible has become a possibility.

How do we start digging - we start bringing it up in conversation with fellow gun owners, we write letters to the newspaper, we contact the NRA, we write our legislators even if anti-gun so they know that it is important to some of their constituants and we work to educate the people that we contact in our daily lives - by talking not preaching - and we post on internet forums we are members of - not just gun forums - but when appropriate other forums - for me motorcycle forums. We support financially as we can groups like NRA, SAF, ect... We continue to educate ourselves on the issue by understanding people who object or reject our viewpoint on it so we can intelligently address peoples heartfelt concerns and objections. We get involved in the election process. We take kids shooting, we support knob creek, we build alliances, we do one thing each day to further our cause.

As to the Hughs Amendment - it would not change the level of regulation as it would not touch the 1934 NFA - I can't see how it would increase dramatically the number of people willing or able to jump through those hoops -for example I live in Illinois and here it would still be illegal to own a full auto due to state law - it is the same in many other states - also even if the number of people did increase dramatically they would still be bound by the tight restrictions of the 1934 NFA and there is no rational reason to believe, that I can see, that it would cause any problems. Would the new machine gun owners suddenly go on shooting rampages when that was never the case before 1986, before new machine guns were banned?

Yes, I also want revisions to the NFA, and we could argue/discuss that too, but the primary topic of this thread is the Hughes amendment and changing that by itself is not a major sea change - it would increase the number of full auto owners - but it would not change their level of regulation and I submit that it would not significantly increase the number of full auto owners in the general gun owner population - given the number of casual or nonactive gun owners, those who just hunt - those who still won't be able to afford them, and those whose state or local law enforcement won't allow them to own them.

I guess I will just have to respectfully disagree with some of my peers on this issue.


edit to add, not having seen three posts immediately preceding:


It isn't about need, it isn't about what is feesible this moment, it isn't about what 51 percent or more of the people believe at this time, it is about what is right and what one can do to make things right. As to the relativity argument of gun control or where do were draw the line - I draw it similar to freedom of speech - are there limits on free speech - sure - one can't yell fire if there is no fire - one can't liable someone, one can't spout profanity anywhere one wants to, one can't make credible or serious threats against anothers life. However, we do not catagorically ban certain words, we do not tape people's mouths shut in theaters because they might yell fire, we don't ban entire subjects or catagories of speech. With guns we can't indescriminately shoot them, we can't threaten people with them without just and legal cause (ie, self-defense), we can't take them on private non-public property if the owner doesn't want us to do so. If I have a history of verbal abuse and verbally threatening behaviour towards someone, then a court may curtail my speech, if I have a history of violent behavior towards someone then a court may curtail my legal access to firearms. See, it isn't that hard really.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

mack59,

First of all, do not assume that because someone has a position of gun regulation and ownership that is different from yours that it makes their position "emotional". That is rather condescending and since many folk who own guns have different views than you on their regulation I suspect they have other reasons than "emotion" for their views.

Second, the OP was about getting the Hughes amendment repealed and that is a political solution requiring legislative and political discourse. So, it does matter what the public thinks and how many votes you can get. Just saying it is the right thing to do ignores fatally the process you need to engage in to reach your goal.

Now I agree with your ideas about working for climate change concerning gun ownership but I think you will not find a very receptive audience to FA. Take them to Knob Creek for sure and they will have fun and probably tremble at the thought of ammo costs should they ever choose to own a machinegun but that doesn't mean they will support increasing individual ownership. In fact, some folks I have seen fire them and witness their destructive power often DO change their minds about FA from "don't care" to "nobody needs one of those".

You are right that the Hughes amendment would not generate much of a positive sea change with either gun rights or FA ownership. However, as a gun rights person I believe I have only so much political capital to spend and there are FAR FAR more important gun rights issues IMO than owning FA. And since I see no impact on gun rights pro or con by regulating FA I will choose to spend mine elsewhere.

 

[gyvel]

How long before government buildings are attacked by right wing extremists armed with RPG's and shoulder fired rockets?"

It's already been done with a truck full of fertilizer.

 

[mack59]

Tennessee Gentleman - apologize for any misunderstanding - the first part/paragraph of my post - which could have been clearer was directed towards zukiphile's comment - "You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. Education itself is a good thing, but for the body of people whose decisions are emotionally driven, education is not relevent."

It was not intended to impunge you or anyone on this board. And it was relating to the attitude that some in the general public have against guns which I felt zukiphile characterized accurately in regards to a portion of the general public. And I wasn't trying to put down people who have those views themselves - why should they necessarily have a particularily informed view of guns and not base their views on their personal experience or lack thereof or on the recieved views of their peer group.

Yes, public attitude does influence repeal - but it is not a simple majority or percent in favor. It is widely accepted that the assault weapon ban contributed significantly to the democratic loss of the house and senate - but even then the majority of americans really didn't care that much about it - it was a committed minority, I would guess maybe 10 percent or less that voted single issue and also influenced their friends and neighbors votes that made the difference. Politicians may be many things but they can usually count votes and the same thing is needed for the repeal of the hughes amendment - not convincing a majority - but getting the gun owning community solidly behind repeal and then getting them to influence family and friends. That is why the NRA has always been more powerful than the Brady bunch - the NRA's support however broad it may be - is a mile deep - while the gun controllers support, however wide - is only an inch deep.

I guess that is why I find it disconcerting when I feel as though gun owners start "drawing lines within their own community" - Shotgunners, handgunners, cowboy shooters, rifle shooters, hunters, full auto....ect....

But as I originally meant to end by saying - we may just agree to disagree - and thank you TG - and all - for your comments and thoughts on this issue. I think we can all work to in our own way to promote safe and responsible gun ownership.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think we can all work to in our own way to promote safe and responsible gun ownership.

And here we do agree!

 

[44 AMP]

Like many things, its more a matter of perception than the actual reality

I know a great many people who are firm 2nd Amendment supporters, but not gun enthusiasts. Some are hunters, others are not. But they all believe that we have the right to own guns, for protection, or sport. But they do not believe is machinegun ownership for the general public. As one once told me, "I trust you, you know guns, and what you are doing, but lots of people don't".

And in the end, that what it boils down to, excluding the committed anti gunners, and those simply brainwashed by the anti's propaganda. Decent, intelligent people simply do not believe the common people are responsible enough to be safe with full auto weapons. And, they may be right. We can't know for sure, since that state has not existed since 1934 when restrictive regulations took effect. But I find it likely they would be right, if things were to magically be changed overnight. Too many people are alreadly irresponsible about too many things already, and adding in totally unrestricted full auto ownership doesn't seem to me to make things any better. But that's not precisely what's under discussion.

As to the Hughs Amendment - it would not change the level of regulation as it would not touch the 1934 NFA - I can't see how it would increase dramatically the number of people willing or able to jump through those hoops...

AH, but it would. This thread, and others like it appearing frequently on the board points to a generation of folks with a renewed interest in full auto, and their frustration at learning that they cannot enjoy it, due to the law, and the high cost of those guns legal to own (again, because of the Hughes amendment).

There are apparently a number of people, who have enough money(if the price was even remotely reasonable), and would be willing to go through the NFA process, if the law would allow them to. This is probably due to the attacks and bans on semi auto guns drawing their attention to the subject in the first place.

I mean, suppose you're well off enough to be able to afford a couple thousand for the gun you want, but not $20-40K (or more) for one of the legally transferable guns. And the law won't let you buy (or build) and register a new one. Pretty frustrating, especially when you have been shooting that AR or AK, and would like to experience it in full auto. You can afford it (or could if the price was not aritifically hugely inflated), you got a clean record, can pass any background check, can even get the local Police chief to agree, but the law says you can't do it.

I've been seeing a few of these threads lately, probably from younger folks who were not of an age or income level back when the '86 law went into effect, and are just finding out now the legal limits to full auto ownership.

If the Hughes amendment were repealed, I think that there are a lot of people would would jump at the chance, and go through the hassle to be able to put the "happy switch" in their AR for a few hundred dollars. I would, if the state I lived in allowed it.

 

[mack59]

Ah, but the point is that a lot of states don't allow it and even in those states that do - there are many jurisdictions where getting the law enforcement sign off is not easy. Especially in more urban/metropolitan areas. Just look at FFL's - it really is not that hard to get a basic FFL - a lot easier in fact than to get full auto - yet there are many areas that have a shortage of available FFL's. Yes, a lot of people say they want or even would get full auto, (particularily on gun forums which provides a skewed sample), but the reality is that even if the Hughes amendment were repealed and the price dropped from 20,000 to 2,000 or even 1,000, (which 1,000 would probably be rock bottom since there are restrictions on imports, there would still be very limited demand, and all the paperwork and legal hurdles to selling them, and limited FFL's who can sell full auto, and old guns would still command a premium as collector items), not very many people are going to end up jumping through all the hoops necessary to own one. At most because of pent up demand and the distortion of the market caused by Hughes - one might see a doubling in the number of full auto owners in the first year or two after repeal - which is a relatively small number - and probably more than half of the new full auto's sold would go to people who already owned/had full auto's before repeal since they have gone through the all the hoops before and obviously live in areas in states where it is legal and they can get law enforcement sign offs. So, if you think that doubling the small number of full auto owners is a huge increase then we would disagree, because the total number of full auto owners would still be a small proportion of gun owners and an even smaller number of the general population.

I guess where we mostly disagree is over the right to own full auto and the responsibilty of individuals. If I understand you correctly you do not believe people have the right to own machine guns and you do not believe that people in general are responsible enough to own them. Whether or not people have a right to own them is a whole other discussion so I won't address that here. However, as to whether or not people are responsible enough to own them - well that begs the question - if prior to the hughes amendment in 1986 when new machine guns were available there wasn't a problem with people being irresponsible why would that change? Are people today so different - much less responsible? I mean given the liberalization of concealed carry laws in the last two to three decades, if people were less responsible now one would think that there would be shoot outs in the streets as predicted by the opponents of shall issue concealed carry - but there hasn't been. One might think that the number of fatal firearm accidents would have increased if people today are less responsible, but they have decreased.

As you posted:

"Decent, intelligent people simply do not believe the common people are responsible enough to be safe with full auto weapons. And, they may be right. We can't know for sure, since that state has not existed since 1934 when restrictive regulations took effect. But I find it likely they would be right, if things were to magically be changed overnight. Too many people are alreadly irresponsible about too many things already, and adding in totally unrestricted full auto ownership doesn't seem to me to make things any better. But that's not precisely what's under discussion."

Again, soley repealing the Hughes amendment would not result in totally unrestricted full auto ownership. So, I am struggling to understand your concerns about it - as I know that as you say - many individuals share your point of view or concerns. I may be confused here as I am not clear if you are talking about Hughes or the NFA of 1934 or both.

I am not trying to be contentious or argumentative here - I really do want to understand.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Yes, a lot of people say they want or even would get full auto, (particularily on gun forums which provides a skewed sample)

I agree with you and further say that is why political leverage to repeal Hughes is not there and not likely to be. I equate attitudes towards gun rights on TFL like abortion rights on the Planned Parenthood website. Sometimes it approaches fantasy in it's extremes.

I think a lot of gun owners would not buy FA because of other reasons besides fear. I don't believe FA has EVER been popular with the great majority of the gun owning public EVEN before the NFA. In 1986 the registry (according to Al Norris) had about 100K of legal owners. Compare that to maybe 90 MILLION gun owners and that is a drop in the bucket. Others argue that more would own them if all restrictions were lifted and I agree more would but I see no evidence that say 20% of all gun owners would buy them.

IMO the public in general and many gun owners think FA was designed and intended for military applications (area denial and fire suppression) and are inappropriate for self defense and hunting and belong mostly in the "different world" of hobbyists and collectors. As stated before the militia justification is seen by most as nutty.

Sure the public is afraid of them being legally widespread but they also see no practical need for them either.

 

[Frank Ettin]

... soley repealing the Hughes amendment would not result in totally unrestricted full auto ownership. So, I am struggling to understand your concerns about it - as I know that as you say - many individuals share your point of view or concerns...

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't necessarily say that I have a concern. I just think that enough of the body politic has enough of an antipathy to automatic weapons to make the likelihood of repealing the Hughes Amendment vanishingly small, i. e., it's just not going to happen.

...You are right that the Hughes amendment would not generate much of a positive sea change with either gun rights or FA ownership. However, as a gun rights person I believe I have only so much political capital to spend and there are FAR FAR more important gun rights issues IMO than owning FA. And since I see no impact on gun rights pro or con by regulating FA I will choose to spend mine elsewhere.

So for me, at least, this is the most significant point. We have other battles to fight -- battles that are both more important for more gun owners, and potential gun owners, and more likely to be successful -- than trying to get rid of the Hughes Amendment.

 

[44 AMP]

Pre 1934...

Full auto ownership was not "popular" and was not "common" among the majority of American gun owners. This was because, primarily of the nature of American gun ownership of the time, and the cost of full auto firearms compared to the general economic times.

Had the NFA 34 not been passed, it is entirely possible that by the 1950s that could have changed. But that's a what if situation, having nothing to do with things as they are today.

Before 34, those people who legally owned full autos, and by that I am not talking about criminals like bank robbers or bootleggers, were mostly collectors and hobbyists well off enough to afford them, and people who brought them back as war trophies. A new Tommygun cost as much as several rifles and handguns put together, and for the majority of gun owners, there was simply no reason to spend the money to own one, as its practical value was less than cheaper "working guns".

When the 34 law took effect, large numbers of full auto guns were not registered with the govt, for a number of reasons, inability/unwillingness to pay the tax, and suspicion of govt. being the chief reasons. For decades afterwards, the policy was that if you got caught with an unregistered full auto (having committed no other crime), you paid the tax, registered the gun, and the govt. was happy. Criminal prosecutions for failing to register and pay the tax (when no other crime was involved) were quite rare.

Until 1968. The govt offered an amnesty period to get "all" the unregistered guns registered and taxed. After this expired the govt policy became prosecution for having an unregistered and untaxed (aka "illegal") full auto.

New made guns (complete originals or conversions) were allowed to be registered, (prior to construction/conversion), and "discovered" guns were generally also allowed to be registered and made legal.

That ended in 86, with the Hughes Amendment. No more full autos for civilian ownership. Ever.

The argument that full autos were not popular, and widely owned before 34 and therefore the govt has a valid right to restrict them is fallacious. Top fuel dragsters are not commonly owned by the majority of car owners. It is simply a matter of cost, interest and utility among the general public. My personal view is that there should be NO gun control laws of any kind, simply because (like other inanimate objects) guns are incapable of harming anyone without a person aiming and firing them. We have had laws since the creation of laws, that prohibit harming others for fun and profit. To me, this seems sufficient. BUT, I am enough of a realist to recognize that we have these laws, and too many people believe that they are of significant value, so they are not going away. I have no personal objection to the NFA 34's restrictions (the hoops you have to jump through), except that the local law enforcement approval should be a "must" approve, in the absence of evidence disqualifying you.

Note that in the recent decades, interest in, and ownership of military style rifles has grown hugely. ARs and AKs, (semi auto) are owned in huge numbers by lots of "ordinary" gun owners today. I believe that if the laws and economics allowed, a significant percentage of these guns would be made select fire, which is full auto under US law. Lots of people are into these kinds of guns today (and likely because of the potential for them being restricted by the govt), and this interest leads them to an interest in full auto as well.

Resetting the law back to pre 86 levels would be fine with me. And it would head off the possible legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment that ought to be brought, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller vs DC case.

I will not fight or argue against the govt registering and putting "reasonable" restrictions on full auto ownership. I don't think it should, but I am clearly in the minority on that. So be it. But what the Hughes amendment does is create a "de facto" ban, on an entire class of firearm. And that appears to be contrary to the Heller decision, and so can be fought in court.

In the end, that may be our safest avenue of attack, as unlike an awakened and enraged public/Congress, the courts are unlikely to add additional restrictions into law should our case fail.

The main problem with any public campaign to repeal/nullify the Hughes amendment is that it will be (deliberately) portrayed as "total unrestricted machinegun ownership", to the public, and to lawmakers. All the NFA requirements and restrictions will be conveniently overlooked, and the press will scream about how we want these "formerly illegal guns available on every streetcorner" and how nutjobs, drug dealers and terrorists will buy them at gunshows through the loophole! etc. etc.etc.

I'd like to see the 86 "ban" go away, but these things must be done...delicately.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Using a Reverse Argument.

Somewhere down the road, we may wish to use a reverse argument. Once assault weapons have become much more acceptable to the public through our education techniques and because the Brady's and others grow tired of banging their heads against the brick wall, we can start to make the argument that full auto is really not all that different from semi auto, especially 3 round burst mode. It's something we should consider at some point in time.

The anti's have tried their best to equate semi auto with full auto because they believe that the public is scared poopless of FA. Well, if we turn that around and can reassure the public that SA's are not that dangerous (we use them for deer hunting after all), and even the Bradys were equating SA to FA, then by logic, FA is not all that dangerous either. I realize that it's a long shot.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The argument that full autos were not popular, and widely owned before 34 and therefore the govt has a valid right to restrict them is fallacious.

I think what the argument is generally about is whether they were ever "in common use" the standard Heller put forth. I submit the government has a reasonable right to restrict them because they are unsuitable for the common use of self defense for civilians.

Full auto ownership was not "popular" and was not "common" among the majority of American gun owners. This was because, primarily of the nature of American gun ownership of the time, and the cost of full auto firearms compared to the general economic times.

Which means they were never in common use even before NFA. Therefore to argue the NFA made them uncommon is equally fallacious. I would add to your reasons that they were unpopular was because they are unsutiable for civilian law-abiding use.

Had the NFA 34 not been passed, it is entirely possible that by the 1950s that could have changed. But that's a what if situation, having nothing to do with things as they are today.

It is equally possible that their relative rarity among guns owners would have remained the same. Thus they would still not be in common use even today.

Resetting the law back to pre 86 levels would be fine with me. And it would head off the possible legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment that ought to be brought, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller vs DC case.

I don't disagree. Hughes serves no public interest whatsoever in my opinion. Still I am not sure as many folk as you think would buy them but if they did then the Brady's would chortel that now with more of them out there more criminals could steal them and use them accordingly. Therefore I fear we could lose the public policy debate on Hughes.

But what the Hughes amendment does is create a "de facto" ban, on an entire class of firearm. And that appears to be contrary to the Heller decision, and so can be fought in court.

Not if FA is considered by the court to be 1) dangerous and unusual 2) not in common use. Handguns missed those because they are too numerous and are ideal for civilian SD. ARs might today but I wouldn't bet the farm on that either.

EDIT: Has Hughes been challenged in court like the NFA? Just wondering.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, if we turn that around and can reassure the public that SA's are not that dangerous (we use them for deer hunting after all), and even the Bradys were equating SA to FA, then by logic, FA is not all that dangerous either.

LOL. Good luck with that!

 

[ADB]

Now, all of that is a bunch of meadow muffins, but that is the mindset of the liberals.... The liberals have majorities in both houses of congress and they own the whitehouse.... They'd vote in Count Dracula if he ran as a democrat and promised to tax the rich.

Friendly note: it might behoove you to realize that there are millions of gun owning, heavily armed liberals in this country, including some which belong to this very forum. And probably quite a lot in your home state of Minnesota, being a heavily rural state but with a strong tradition of liberalism. Just a thought.

Back on topic, personally I don't see great odds on the Hughes Act going away any time in the near future, simply because it's difficult bordering on impossible to make a case for what you can do with full auto that you can't do with another weapon except for just recreational shooting. You won't be hunting on auto, and it's not likely to be any more effective for home defense than a semi-auto shotgun. So you're left with a very uphill battle trying to say why it should be easily obtained. Laws that don't create a frequent sense of injustice (and even some that do) tend to stay on the books.

For that matter, ask yourselves what you'd be using it for if you had one? I personally would enjoy having an auto weapon around for fun, but I doubt it would get as much use as would my semi-auto or bolt weapons. Accuracy counts for a lot more than rate of fire.

 

[44 AMP]

Thats the point!

what you can do with full auto that you can't do with another weapon except for just recreational shooting.

For civilians, full auto is all about recreational shooting! Not hunting, not self defense, and although they would be effective as militlia weapons, we all know that dead horse isn't going to get on its feet any time soon. But recreational shooting. A perfectly legal and valid reason. Not, I admit, one popular with the non shooting public, but valid, nonetheless.

Govt has the authority to regulate full auto (even though to a true libertarian/strict constructionist they shouldn't), due to their "unusual and dangerous" nature, but they have no reason to deny us them all together. And, given enough time, thats what the Hughes amendment will do.

They were restricted, taxed and regulated under the NFA 34, but not denied. Individual states may deny ownership (as far as I know, there are only two or three that actually do), but that is a matter for the individual states, and their citizens.

There are a huge number of things in our modern world that have little or no "useful" purpose, other than recreation/enertainment. Many of these things can be misused to lethal ends. Most of them are not regulated at all, or very slightly. The govt does not deny them to us. The whole idea of the government denying us such property as we desire to own and use in a safe and legal manner is, to me, contrary to the idea of personal liberty.

Regulate it, tax it (if you must), ensure the owners are stable, law abiding citizens, fine. But do not arbitrarily completely deny ownership. Firearms have an uphill battle to be considered the same as other property, due to the lethal consequences and ease of their misuse, and lack of everyday utility to the average citizen. No one even considers a complete ban on items of common utility, even though their misuse can have as great a consequence. We regulate them instead. Why do you need a license to drive a car on public roads? For public safety. We license full auto owners for the same basic reason.

It is the operators intent that turns an inanimate object from a tool to a weapon. The greatest mass murder of modern times was not done with guns on that September day.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Govt has the authority to regulate full auto (even though to a true libertarian/strict constructionist they shouldn't), due to their "unusual and dangerous" nature,

Dangerous and unusual is a legal term utilized in Heller that's yet to be defined. Consider the entire range of weapons of war available to our forces. From a purely logical point of view, FA, or any small arm, is quite low on the D and A scale. Remember that a common militia weapon was a cannon, which could be likened to modern-day tank fire. The second amendment certainly intended to include cannons.

I'm not suggesting that licensing or permitting tanks would be a good idea today, just that even FA small arms pale in comparison to the damage that a well-aimed projectile can do that measures two to four inches in diameter.

All firearms are by definition dangerous. But if the militia clause is to have any modern relevance whatsoever, I would argue that a select-fire-M16 should NOT be defined as dangerous and unusual and therefore should not be able to be banned outright.

If the ability to resist a future tyrannical government is part and parcel of 2A, (and Heller says it is) then a primary object of the amendment would be to preserve the citizenry's means to sufficient force to resist that tyranny.

There are a huge number of things in our modern world that have little or no "useful" purpose, other than recreation/enertainment. Many of these things can be misused to lethal ends.

Exactly, just because anyone who can afford may own a drag racer doesn't mean they use it to drive to work.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If the ability to resist a future tyrannical government is part and parcel of 2A, (and Heller says it is) then a primary object of the amendment would be to preserve the citizenry's means to sufficient force to resist that tyranny.

I am not sure Heller said that. Certainly not in any way you could have this right to assert against as an individual not in a militia.

I read Heller and especially the oral argument with Alan Gura that FA will be considered both dangerous and unusual and not in common use and all existing laws regulating them upheld.

Exactly, just because anyone who can afford may own a drag racer doesn't mean they use it to drive to work.

In many states I am not sure you could even drive such a thing on public roads. So, maybe we will keep the FA weapons in the armories of the Organized Militia, the National Guard? You can draw them when TEOTWAWKI occurs!

 

[maestro pistolero]

T.G:

I am not sure Heller said that. Certainly not in any way you could have this right to assert against as an individual not in a militia.

Heller vs DC:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.

Note that Scalia did not say that 2A right was detached from the prefatory clause. Only that it may be objected that if there's a ban, then the clause is completely detached. But, if it was detached, then ONLY the individual right would remain to be asserted.

But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the
time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body
of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring
the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty.

NFA weapons are not illegal under federal law, only regulated, and therefore are lawful weapons.

It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large.

What are the sophisticated arms he is talking about here? Certainly, FA, which has been around for a very long time is not even slightly sophisticated compared to tanks, and fighter jets.

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks.

That's lliterally true, but no war can be won with tanks and planes alone, unless annihilation is the means to victory. We've seen this in every war we've fought, especially from Vietnam forward. It always comes down to small arms in the end.

Then Scalia offers this:

But the fact that modern developments have lim*
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

So even though small arms no longer alter the balance of power to the same degree, they are still protected, and can not be banned. Regulated, yes. But most of us would agree that the Hughs amendment, which closes the registration on an item that is required to be registered, is a de-facto ban.

And finally from pages 24-25 of the decision:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan*
der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better
able to resist tyranny.