It isn't the dollar amount of the fee--at least at present--that's the problem so much as it is the paperwork, the stigma, the lack of public knowledge, and the regulation. The average person doesn't know where to get suppressors and select fire stuff, doesn't know that they can, wouldn't put up with the paperwork and hassle, wouldn't want to have to ask their CLEO who might not sign off on it anyway. That coupled with the resulting low volume of sales raising the prices to where it's out of a lot of folks' range, or at least they'd have to think very hard about it, is what the real burden of the NFA is. It's a heck of a lot more than $200--that's two nights out to a fancy dinner. It's a speeding ticket. If it were that friggin simple we'd have have so many suppressors commonly sold I'd be able to borrow one every time I went to the range instead of needing to own my own. It sure as heck wouldn't be one person's hobby/curiosity and 100x as many other people's fantasy.
2nd Amendment Regulation
- Thread starter Webleymkv
- Start date
- Status
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Well and good. The trick, however, will be getting a judge to buy that.Webleymkv said:
I am fully aware of that, what you say is protected by the First Amendment. However, I was simply suggesting how you might avoid being "bombarded with requests" and "jerked around." So long as you don't mind your claims being challenged, go ahead and make them.
Not at all. As I said before, they're answerable to the same authority as you, I, or the President of the United States for that matter: the people. If the militia chooses to engage in an illegal activity, they will be subject to a trial by a jury of their peers (which is made up of the people).
Also, the Militia Act of 1903 is pretty vauge in it's description of the unorganized militia (also known as the reserve militia) in that it is composed of able bodied men aged 17 to 45 and that they are eligible to be called up for military service (i.e. drafted). So by definition of the 1903 Militia Act, most of us are members of the unorganized militia whether we know it or not. The Constitution does not make distinction between the organized and unorganized militia and Scalia has said that membership to the militia is not required in order to enjoy 2A rights. While the Miller decision states that a weapon must be suitable for service by the militia in order to be protected by 2A, the Militia Act of 1903 formed the National Guard as the organized militia. Since one must not belong to the militia in order to enjoy 2A rights and weapons must be suitable for use by the militia (full-auto is certainly suitable for the national guard) it could be argued that all firearms suitable for use by the National Guard are protected by the Second Amendment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#The_reserve_militia.2Funorganized_militia
Regardless of their politics (which I don't agree with) they are a militia whether they fit your definition or not. I strongly disagree with the Ku Klux Klan's politics and views (I find them disgusting as a matter of fact) but their First Amendment rights are still protected.
A 30-06 bolt action rifle is quite lethal and can very easily harm an innocent bystander (ever heard of overpenetration) if the proper precautions aren't taken in its use, so no I guess I don't understand the difference.
So should we institute complete military discipline in order to increase public safety? Afterall, if everyone is forced to adhere to the same exercise and diet programs as the military ther would probably not be so many obese people, doesn't that serve to benefit public health?
So you'd prefer to punish people for what they might do then. We tried banning alcohol because of what people might do when they get drunk and that didn't work out so well.
Actually, you're right in that it doesn't matter. The differences between nukes and machineguns has been sufficiently discussed.
So long as they're stable enough to be stored and operated at an adequate range without representing a significant danger to the public, I see no reason to ban them.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
Nope, but I do decide if I'm going to take you seriously or not. So if someone makes unsupported claims, I'm just not going to be paying any attention to him. If you're content to spend a lot of time posting things that are going to be ignored, that's your business.Tennessee Gentleman said:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I like that!
Which in practical effect is no one.
This is too funny. Do they wear tin foil under their helmets?
LOLWell, I give up then.
Restricting access to all military weapons is not punishment. It is common sense public safety.
What? I am beginning to think you are talking to someone else. How does restricting access to all military weapons equate to imposing military weight standards on civilians? non sequitur.Ok, good but you can't see the difference between a over&under shotgun and a rocket launcher?
Right, because it has no duties. It is only the pool from which members are drawn for military service and serves no other purpose. Unless you are on active duty, reserve or NG then this is the category you are in. Unless of course you are old like me
Certainly no access to rocket launchers and hand grenades for the unorganized militia.Well, it will never happen no matter how hard you wish it would and if you think it is unconstitutional then hey it's a free country.
I think we have exhausted this one anything else you need to ask? If so please do otherwise adios! Oh, and don't be looking to buy that stinger anytime soon
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Your choice my friend. I ain't running for office. Anyway, I ain't changing any minds of those on here who I am debating with. They want their stingers!
Nice to see that you have such faith in our system of government. They are still accountable to the law. That's why Mark Koernke went to prison.
As American citizens, they are members of the "unorganized militia" per the Milita Act of 1903 no matter how ridiculous they may be. Neither the Constitution nor SCOTUS has yet made a distinction between the two insofar as 2A rights.
Like the "common sense" gun control that Sen. Obama supports? I've yet to see any evidence that restricting access to these weapons contributes anything to public safety.
Well, since military discipline produces so much more responsible and upstanding citizens, why should it only be applied to one area?
Oh, I see the difference. I just don't see enough difference to warrant more severe restriction on one over the other.
It's duties or lack thereof have no bearing on it's members constitutional rights per SCOTUS. Given the arguments I've seen, I don't see how the current severity of restriction on military arms passes constitutional muster.
Well, there are many laws that are or have been on the books that didn't pass constitutional muster. However, they must be brough before SCOTUS and heard by Justices who don't let their own personal politics cloud their judgement in order to be thrown out. The NFA has not yet.
Actually, it has nothing to do with wanting a stinger as I have no desire for one whatsoever. It's a matter of principle: I don't take kindly to my rights being violated. You haven't changed my mind because you haven't presented a logical argument to the contrary (most likely because you don't have one).
RedneckFur
New member
A well versed and well read troll is still a troll. I say we all quit feeding it. This is obviously a battle that none of us can win, simply because the oposition will not admit defeat. (despite not having a leg to stand on)
The greatest thing about trolls? Ignore them, and they generally go away
The greatest thing about trolls? Ignore them, and they generally go away
Frank Ettin
Administrator
In any case, even if we could reach consensus here, it wouldn't matter. What matters is what the courts do with this. And I doubt that many of the arguments raised here, on either side of the question, will figure prominently in any judicial analysis.RedneckFur said:
TN Gent said:
Those seem a heck of a lot more "dangerous and unusual" not to mention more "sophisticated" (to use Scalia's words) than an M-16.
Are you saying that on the big danger scale, an M-16 is closer to a Stinger missile than it is to an AR-15? I'd put it right next to the AR-15 (almost on top of it), while the others seem far out on the spectrum to me.
Last edited:
I don't think TG is a troll, I believe he is giving us his honest opinion.
Fiddletown: You wrote, in part, that the courts will hammer out the acceptable standards for firearms ownership, etc.
I think you're correct but I worry alot when four Justices of the SCOTUS read the history, evidence, documentation and other court decisions and still feel the 2nd Amendment affords only a collective right.
How someone can read what Scalia wrote, with his supporting evidence, etc., and still rule for the collective right theory only, is a sign that emotional, life long "feelings" rule the day oftentimes.
As TG stated, the unorganized militia is there for pooling purposes, so that they are available for organized militia type service. If I was called up, I'd be happy to see a Sergeant organizing and helping me with the tactics, strategies, etc. You get what I mean.
What I think TG misses here is the regulation against full auto rifles could put the citizenry at an unnecessary disadvantage. I can understand prohibitions against ordnance however.
Full auto rifles are not dangerous enough to be banned IMHO. Therein lies the basic disagreement I have with TG.
And, Fiddletown, that's how those four Justices feel about firearms in general. They honestly feel firearms are too dangerous for individuals to own and operate for something as fundamental as self-defense. That absolutely baffles me.
We're still going to fight against regulations but the Heller decision gave us fundamental individual rights. It will be hard for even intermediate regulations to be held constitutional in the long run IMHO. But people like the four Justices will try. It will give them time, if anything.
Frank Ettin
Administrator
I worry about that too, and I think it's the real concern. Anything we might decide here is meaningless. It's what the courts decide that will affect what we do and how we live.RDak said:
So since the next President will be appointing more federal judges, including, probably, at leas one Supreme Court Justice, IMO Obama would be most likely to appoint federal judges antagonistic to the RKBA and who will be most inclined to try to skip around and/or take a narrow view of Scalia's opinion. So I really would much rather not see Obama as President. I think it would be very bad for our interests were Obama to be President. But the only way for Obama not to be President is for McCain to be elected.
We can debate what we think is right and proper all we want. But in the real world, what the courts decide is what matters.
No doubt about that Fiddletown.
Edit: I forgot to say that one of the moderators at Scotusblog.com (i.e., I think it was Tom Goldstein[sp?]) stated emphatically he does not think there will be a retiring judge for a couple to a few more years.
I'm only stating what he said during a roundtable review of SCOTUS decisions in their last session.
Edit: I forgot to say that one of the moderators at Scotusblog.com (i.e., I think it was Tom Goldstein[sp?]) stated emphatically he does not think there will be a retiring judge for a couple to a few more years.
I'm only stating what he said during a roundtable review of SCOTUS decisions in their last session.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I have great faith in our system. I do not have such faith in the militias like these comical guys from Michigan who answer to no one. I think where we are missing each other is you are saying "let people do whatever they want and if they hurt someone then punish them." I am saying that some things (like nitroglycerin and military weapons) are so dangerous that they need to be regulated so they don't cause that harm to begin with. I am not a libertarian. This I think is the nub of our disagreement. You say total liberty without any restraint (until you hurt someone) and I say limited liberty and the rule of law is the price we pay for living in a civilized nation. However, there's always Mars!
Maybe we will have the frontier again when we colonze there!See the Miller decision of 1939. The NFA was challenged.
Not trying to change your mind. Clarence Darrow or Mr. Spock couldn't do that. You have made up your mind and won't be confused by any facts or arguments. That is clear to me by your statements that you can't see the difference in lethality and danger to others between a rocket launcher and a bolt action .22.
I am just speaking out against what you believe.
Mostly, I hope that those who read these threads and don't post will understand that there are at least some in the gun world who do not have the extreme and unsupportable views like you. I believe in the gun world and throughout the "silent majority" as well as all three branches of government oppose unrestricted access to military weaponry for civilians.
However, I think you could run for President of the Michigan Militia, they would agree with your ideas I think.
The OP talked about where to draw the line on restrictions on the 2A. I draw it at the full auto point because I think it the most logical palce to do that. Why, because full auto operation was developed specifically and only for the military. Civilians acquired them later on but there was no original impetus to market them for civilian use. Why? Because they were unsuitable for anything a civilian would use them for. I know Thompson did later market their sub gun but that was not why it was developed and it failed to make a lot of sales. I am also not talking about models of firearms like the 1911 or '03 Springfield. Semi-auto pistols, rifles and bolt actions were available for civilian use and so made before the military adopted them. Just talking about the operation of the weapon.
Thank you Sir. I am glad you see that there is no mental orthodoxy for those who love guns.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Rdak,
Just a couple of points
I assume the disadvantage you speak of relates to participation in a militia? If you're talking self defense I say we have all the firepower we could ever need against bandits. I have an AR-15 and it is probably overkill for any threat I could face. I could hold off a mob with that weapon I think with good cover.
As to the militia piece the real disadvantage civilians have is lack of training and practice in land warfare to make their owning a full auto weapon of any advantage to them. Even those who came on active duty who were good shots and hunted a lot as civilians had to "unlearn" lots of things. They caught on quicker but by the end of AIT the differences between most of them and the "city boys" was not that great. Learning these skills and the controls and discipline put in place under military duty is why "Joe Six Pack" can become an effective soldier.
I have never said they should be banned. Just heavily regulated. I like the Knob Creek thing.
Thanks for your reasonable discourse.
Just a couple of points
I assume the disadvantage you speak of relates to participation in a militia? If you're talking self defense I say we have all the firepower we could ever need against bandits. I have an AR-15 and it is probably overkill for any threat I could face. I could hold off a mob with that weapon I think with good cover.
As to the militia piece the real disadvantage civilians have is lack of training and practice in land warfare to make their owning a full auto weapon of any advantage to them. Even those who came on active duty who were good shots and hunted a lot as civilians had to "unlearn" lots of things. They caught on quicker but by the end of AIT the differences between most of them and the "city boys" was not that great. Learning these skills and the controls and discipline put in place under military duty is why "Joe Six Pack" can become an effective soldier.
I have never said they should be banned. Just heavily regulated. I like the Knob Creek thing.
Thanks for your reasonable discourse.
Obviously the guys in Michigan do answer to someone if they can be sent to prison.
The only two ways that a law can be effective are through the citizen's respect for it or the citizen's fear of punishment. What is the point of a gun law? To prevent violence. If someone is willing to commit a violent crime which is a much more serious offence that violation of a gun law and carries more severe penalties, could we not safely say that the person in question neither respects the law nor fears punishment? Because of this, the only people who are going to follow the law are those like you and I that either respect it or fear the consequences. Chances are if we respect of fear the gun law, we share the same feelings about the laws against violent crime. Therefore, the gun laws we're discussing serve only to disarm and restrict the people who weren't the problem to begin with. The NFA cannot keep military weapons and explosives out of a determined enough criminal's hands, both can be had either through the black market or illegal fabrication. Is it possible though that there are those who would respect or fear laws against violent crime but not the gun laws? I think there are and in that case your gun laws have served only to turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.
read the full context of what I said
A unanimous decision in which only one side presents arguments before the court doesn't sound the least bit odd to you?
Well, if you presented any relevant facts or logical arguments it might be different. However, you've yet to do that so my mind remains unchanged.
As I've said before, I understand the difference, I just don't see why one should be regulated more strictly than the other.
I hope that those who read this will realize that there are those of us who don't just accept something as right just because you, congress, the president or SCOTUS says so. History does not support that line of thinking and neither do I.
Could the operation of most weapons not find it's roots in military use? Certainly revolvers, semi-automatic weapons, and indeed firearms in general found their first widespread use by the military. Just because I don't need something or because it wasn't designed with my use in mind doesn't mean I should be barred from having it. Sounds to me like you're trying to rationalize banning what you don't have or want without applying the same logic to what you do.
Weren't AR15's designed for military use? How is an AR15, which has been limited to semiauto only, more dangerous than an M16 which has full auto or 3 round burst capability? I've fired both, and I don't see the danger in the M16 to far outweigh the danger in the AR15. I understand the difference in functionality, but I dont' see how that difference increases the danger to the public at large to any appreciable degree.
Why can someone "legally" own a full auto weapon made or imported before 1986, but cannot own one made or imported in 1987? Was there some radical design change in 1986 that made full autos too dangerous for civilians to possess? I hadn't heard of any new radical technology changes in 1986 related to full auto firearms. Maybe I missed something.
Just as there are gun owners such as TG who think civilians shouldn't own full auto firearms, there are gun owners who don't think civilians should be allowed to own "assault weapons". There are others who don't think civilians should be able to own any handguns. Each of those groups, like TG, thinks they are right and have the correct approach to how much "firepower" civilians should be allowed to "possess". The shotgunners say that no one NEEDS a handgun. After all, to them, a shotgun is the best SD weapon there is. And handguns are worthless on birds and clay targets anyway. Thus, they can justify their positions, based upon their needs. Any need outside of theirs, is not justified, in their minds.
Why can someone "legally" own a full auto weapon made or imported before 1986, but cannot own one made or imported in 1987? Was there some radical design change in 1986 that made full autos too dangerous for civilians to possess? I hadn't heard of any new radical technology changes in 1986 related to full auto firearms. Maybe I missed something.
Just as there are gun owners such as TG who think civilians shouldn't own full auto firearms, there are gun owners who don't think civilians should be allowed to own "assault weapons". There are others who don't think civilians should be able to own any handguns. Each of those groups, like TG, thinks they are right and have the correct approach to how much "firepower" civilians should be allowed to "possess". The shotgunners say that no one NEEDS a handgun. After all, to them, a shotgun is the best SD weapon there is. And handguns are worthless on birds and clay targets anyway. Thus, they can justify their positions, based upon their needs. Any need outside of theirs, is not justified, in their minds.
- Status