2nd Amendment Regulation

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Not effectively, and the ruling itself was illigitimate.

A unanimous decision in which only one side presents arguments before the court doesn't sound the least bit odd to you?

Miller was arrested for violating the NFA. The case went to the Supreme Court because Miller said the NFA unconstitutionally infringed upon the 2A and the NFA was upheld. In fact the law is still in full force and will be in the future I suspect. This is the law of the land and Scalia did not change that. Like it or not. I don't think you will see the NFA go away thru the courts.

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.

I think they will see you as having an extreme and untenable position concerning the Second Amendment. What I hope they see most importantly is that not everyone who owns a gun has such an illogical position as do you and many others on this board about the extent of the RKBA. If someone like me doesn't speak out against some of the extreme stuff that is posted on this board, my concern is that fear of the extreme positions like you hold will cause Mr. Citizen and the courts to pass even more restrictions against us. Your position while you are freely entitled to it hurts the common cause of gun ownership as it invites fear and more restrictions. BTW I speak out on the T&T board when I see the "lets go shoot somebody" posts that occaisionally spring up there. That is just as bad to our cause as the unrestricted access to military weapons positions.

Weren't AR15's designed for military use?

Read my post again. I spoke to operation not model.

Could the operation of most weapons not find it's roots in military use?

No in fact some weapons the military adopted were originally civilian. Like the lever action rifle. Full auto was developed solely for use by the military with no civilian application.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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".

Maybe you should dialogue more with them. They outnumber you.

Any need outside of theirs, is not justified, in their minds.

My personal needs have nothing to do with my position. I just happen to agree with law as it is written now. I have already commented in an earlier post about the "86 law.

 

[USAFNoDak]

They also outnumber you. You are a confessed possessor of an AR15. At least that is your claim. So those groups would work against you just as hard as they'd work against someone who owned an M16. However, in one case, you'd join hands with them. I would choose not to join hands with them.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You are a confessed possessor of an AR15. At least that is your claim. So those groups would work against you just as hard as they'd work against someone who owned an M16.

At one time you might have been right. I don't think so now. Hunters are beginning to see they need common cause with shooters. The AR-15 is not an issue with them anymore I think. Military weapons are another issue altogether and have no relation tothe AR-15. I do have one and it is fun to shoot I built it!

 

[USAFNoDak]

My personal needs have nothing to do with my position. I just happen to agree with law as it is written now. I have already commented in an earlier post about the "86 law.

So you don't agree with how the 86 law is written? You do agree with the way the NFA is written. I disagree with both, the way they are written, especially in light of the fact that we compromised on NICS. Now, everyone has to go through a background check to purchase any new firearms. Why do we need "extra" scrutiny for full auto's? Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934. Criminals using full autos was a problem. Today, criminals use handguns and in some cases, full autos to commit crimes. The North Hollywood bankrobbers were not licensed under the NFA. They were criminals.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Read my post again. I spoke to operation not model.

So semiautos were not designed for military use? Gee, I wonder about the M1 and the M1 carbine. Were those guns not designed for military use? Where is your proof that full auto firearms were not designed for anything other than military use? If you cannot do that, then your "functionality, not model number" criteria breaks down. Could an M16 not be used to hunt? Why not? Could it not be used to defend one's property? Why not? I think it would make a great tool for either of those activities. Would I hunt with it set on full auto? That's doubtful, but it also has a semiauto feature. Could I use the full auto feature safely? Sure I could. Many other americans own full autos and apparently can possess them and use them safely. Otherwise, we'd have heard about the crimes being committed with them, and/or accidents involving them.

 

[USAFNoDak]

At one time you might have been right. I don't think so now. Hunters are beginning to see they need common cause with shooters. The AR-15 is not an issue with them anymore I think. Military weapons are another issue altogether and have no relation tothe AR-15. I do have one and it is fun to shoot I built it!

I just had a debate with a coworker, who is a shotgunner, about 6 weeks ago. He said that no body needs and assault weapon to hunt. He said, "What are you going to do, make hamburger out of the deer?" That's an old line but it's still being used today. They ask, how many rounds do you need to kill a deer, 20? Then you hear, "A real hunter only needs one round to kill his prey". There are still many hunters out there who don't believe that the evil black rifles should be allowed for possession by civilians.

Here's a real doozie for you. I know a guy who is all for the AWB of 94. One of the guns he owns is a Ruger Mini-14. How is that any different, operational wise (for TG) than an AR15 or clone? It's not. But, he viewed his Mini-14 as a hunting rifle because he shoots prairie dogs with it. When I told him that I also know a fellow who hunts prairie dogs with an AR, he just laughed.

There are still groups of gunowners who would sell other gun owners down the river just because they don't fancy the same types of firearms.

Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation. By the way, I am a fellow AR15 owner, and they are fun to shoot. No disagreement there. The M16 was also fun to shoot.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So you don't agree with how the 86 law is written?

I don't think it is unconstitutional but I think it was a dumb law. Repeal it if you don't want it. BTW the NRA agreed to let it pass to get the FOPA which they thought to be more important. That's kind of my position, more important things to fight over than somebody's right to own a stinger, like keeping my CCL.

So semiautos were not designed for military use?

Nope. They were around way before the military adopted them. I think the reasoning was the brass thought they wasted ammo.

Could an M16 not be used to hunt?...I think it would make a great tool for either of those activities.

I think the M203 would be better. I'm sorry these are silly questions.

Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation.

One is a machinegun the other is not. Pretty simple.

Now, everyone has to go through a background check to purchase any new firearms.

Not with private sales.

Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934.

Few if any owned them. See my previous posts.

Why do we need "extra" scrutiny for full auto's?

See previous posts.

There are still groups of gunowners who would sell other gun owners down the river just because they don't fancy the same types of firearms.

Nobody has sold you down the river. Go buy an M-16 if you wish. Nobody is stopping you.

He said that no body needs and assault weapon to hunt. He said, "What are you going to do, make hamburger out of the deer?" That's an old line but it's still being used today.

Yeah I understand the way some hunters feel but that is changing as people who shoot are about the same number as those who hunt. That didn't use to be. I thought a Mini-14 was banned in 1994. Glad it wasn't.

 

[zukiphile]

The Militia doesn't exist anymore plain and simple, except in the imagination of some. This is 2008 not 1790 and we have a standing Army to defend us against foreign invaders and can defend ourselves personally with the firearms currently in common use by civilians.

Some of us imagine US code to state

Quote:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html

You seem to argue that the conditions of the second sentence somehow support the erroneous conclusion of the first.

The fact that the militia predated the COTUS and is referenced in current statute, together with both those having been noted for you in the past, should restrain you from claiming that the militia does not exist.

 

[publius42]

Because they (full autos) were unsuitable for anything a civilian would use them for.

That's completely untrue! A civilian might want to grin like a bandit as a rainbow of brass goes one direction while the lead hose pumps in another - it causes grinning, and is therefore every bit as much recreation as blasting Bambi. Recreation is a valid use of firearms.

In any case, whether or not you or I think they are appropriate for civilians, the price tags on them show that lots and lots of civilians with big wads of cash think they are appropriate.

You failed to address my central point, which was that an M-16 is much, much closer to an AR-15 than it is to a Stinger missile. Would you agree with that statement?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

which was that an M-16 is much, much closer to an AR-15 than it is to a Stinger missile. Would you agree with that statement?

The M-16 is certainly less dangerous to aircraft

the price tags on them show that lots and lots of civilians with big wads of cash think they are appropriate.

I heard during the Heller argument that there are about 100,000 of these owned privately and legally. That out of 100 million or so guns is not a lot. I think the cash deal is valid but I really think full autos are hobby type deals today. I sure wouldn't pay that kind of money for one.

 

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:
So you don't agree with how the 86 law is written?

I don't think it is unconstitutional but I think it was a dumb law. Repeal it if you don't want it. BTW the NRA agreed to let it pass to get the FOPA which they thought to be more important. That's kind of my position, more important things to fight over than somebody's right to own a stinger, like keeping my CCL.

Won't you lend your support to repeal it since you think it's a dumb law. We need everybody's help to repeal as many stupid or dumb laws as we can get. We won't get your support on the NFA because you agree with it. But since you think the 86 law was dumb, will you support getting it repealed?

Quote:
So semiautos were not designed for military use?

Nope. They were around way before the military adopted them. I think the reasoning was the brass thought they wasted ammo.

Still, they would be very useful in military applications and they found there way into the military in a big way. The M1 being the most famous. That was firearm designed for military use. I don't agree with the notion that just because some weapon was designed for military use or civilian use that this should determine whether civilians can have it or not. It comes down to the government having to prove that banning possession of such weapons indeed protects society at large while minimizing the infringement of the individual, civil rights, protected in the 2nd. I still have not seen any logical proof that the M16 is at all more dangerous than the AR15.

Quote:
Could an M16 not be used to hunt?...I think it would make a great tool for either of those activities.

I think the M203 would be better. I'm sorry these are silly questions.

Why are they silly questions? Just because you can't answer them logically? Why is an AR15 OK to hunt with, but not an M16? That's a very logical question if you understand the workings of both models.

Quote:
Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation.

One is a machinegun the other is not. Pretty simple.

You'd like it to be that simple, but it's not. They are of the same "design", TG. The same man, Eugene Stoner, designed the rifle. They both reload the next round in exactly the same fashion. They use the same parts. They have the same bolt. You sure don't seem to know that much about firearms.

Quote:
Now, everyone has to go through a background check to purchase any new firearms.

Not with private sales.

Agreed. However, for full auto, I'd be willing to make all sales go through an FFL for an instant check. In exchange, I'd make the goverment drop the "transfer" fee. That is one area where we might find a comprimise.

Quote:
Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934

.

Few if any owned them. See my previous posts.

Doesn't matter. There should still have been enough people who owned them to allow normal statistics to come into play. If allowing civilians to own full autos was as dangerous as you say it is, the law of averages would have shown at least some issue with this situation, prior to 1934. The government was after the gangsters, who were involved in criminal enterprises and using full auto firearms to commit crimes. Just as today, criminals use handguns to commit most of their crimes. Should we then treat handguns as we do full auto guns? I don't think you could sell that approach very well today.

Quote:
Why do we need "extra" scrutiny for full auto's?

See previous posts.

I have. In effect you are saying (in previous posts), "Because I don't like them in civilian hands and the law agrees with me". That's a non answer IMHO.

Quote:
There are still groups of gunowners who would sell other gun owners down the river just because they don't fancy the same types of firearms.

Nobody has sold you down the river. Go buy an M-16 if you wish. Nobody is stopping you.

Unless I want to buy one made after 1986. Also, the government has essentially stopped me by making them too expensive by artificially depleting the supply. So, yes, someone is stopping me. And we have been sold down the river in the past with fellow gun owners helping to do the selling. The AWB of 94 is one such example. You should be aware of that since you own an Assault Weapon.

Quote:
He said that no body needs and assault weapon to hunt. He said, "What are you going to do, make hamburger out of the deer?" That's an old line but it's still being used today.

Yeah I understand the way some hunters feel but that is changing as people who shoot are about the same number as those who hunt. That didn't use to be. I thought a Mini-14 was banned in 1994. Glad it wasn't.

And there was no reason to ban the AR15 either. That didn't stop the politicians, the Brady Bunch, the VPC, and other anti gun or pro gun control groups from doing everything they could to ban those. Why would you ban the AR15 but not the mini-14? Stupidity? Ignorance? Politics. Remember, Ruger himself was for the AWB 0f 94. Gee, since his guns (mini-14) weren't affected, but his competitors' guns (AR15 and clones) were, do you think he had any political and economical biases to cheering for the AWB? I think he might have. That's a glaring example of one type of gunowner selling others down the river.
[/QUOTE]

Gee

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But since you think the 86 law was dumb, will you support getting it repealed?

Send me a petition, I'll sign it.

They use the same parts. They have the same bolt. You sure don't seem to know that much about firearms.

They use SOME of the same parts but not all. You don't seem to know much about them either

There should still have been enough people who owned them to allow normal statistics to come into play.

I don't believe anywhere near enough people had them to be statistically significant. Other than gangsters. The is not much of a historic tradition of full auto/rocket launcher ownership.

Agreed. However, for full auto, I'd be willing to make all sales go through an FFL for an instant check. In exchange, I'd make the goverment drop the "transfer" fee. That is one area where we might find a comprimise.

I am beginning to like the sound of this more. However, I would want registration of them as well.

I have. In effect you are saying (in previous posts), "Because I don't like them in civilian hands and the law agrees with me". That's a non answer IMHO.

You need to read them again. Has nothing to do with whether I "like" them or not.

Remember, Ruger himself was for the AWB 0f 94. Gee, since his guns (mini-14) weren't affected, but his competitors' guns (AR15 and clones) were, do you think he had any political and economical biases to cheering for the AWB? I think he might have.

I am not defending Bill Ruger nor the AWB. You are probably right there about him but I have no dog in that fight. I don't make and sell firearms. Just a shooter.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Some of us imagine US code to state

I have addressed both the organized and unorganized militias in previous posts. Please refer to them.

 

[publius42]

I heard during the Heller argument that there are about 100,000 of these owned privately and legally. That out of 100 million or so guns is not a lot. I think the cash deal is valid but I really think full autos are hobby type deals today. I sure wouldn't pay that kind of money for one.

I wouldn't buy one if they were easy to buy and priced like other guns, but the prices paid by "hobbyists" demonstrate pent up civilian demand. The safety record of full autos in civilian hands is good, and criminal misuse is almost unheard of.

The machine gun ban was added as a "poison pill" to kill the Firearms Owners Protection Act. I say it's time to hack that thing back up and toss it in the trash.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The machine gun ban was added as a "poison pill" to kill the Firearms Owners Protection Act. I say it's time to hack that thing back up and toss it in the trash.

I agree. My understanding of that law is the same as yours. Although, I think it also might have been a conspiracy by the FA collectors to raise their prices Couldn't think of a better way to do it.

 

[zukiphile]

Some of us imagine US code to state [TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. ]

I have addressed both the organized and unorganized militias in previous posts. Please refer to them.

Why would you refer me to your prior posts that do nothing but restate your unsupportable belief that the militia does not exist?

Asking to whom the members of the unorganised militia report does not cast onto doubt its existence. It simply illustrates one facet of the word "unorganised".

 

[BillCA]

Since TG likes to repeatedly remind us that there is a difference between a .22 bolt rifle and a Stinger missle (I stopped counting at 7 references), let's stop this silly business.

Justice Scalia said the 2nd applied prima facie to bearable arms, including modern weapons. The term prima facie means "on the face of it" or at first look. So this is not a total definition.

Other cases will decide what constitutes a "protected" arm. However, I think we can all agree that legitimate arguments can be made for most firearms that we can own today would be "protected". (I'll admit that a .25 ACP Baby Browning is not my idea of a militia weapon but I wouldn't oppose it either.)

I would suggest that full-auto firearms, which are intended to fire non-explosive projectiles, as a simple extension of technology and do not rise to the level of "unusual and dangerous"1.

We can agree, I think, that the majority of controversy will be over arms which use explosive projectiles, bio/chemical emitting projectiles and the like. Artillery, mortars, rocket systems, an M1 Abrams and an F-15E Eagle aircraft would not be protected. This would include "area munitions" like grenades, mines and WMDs.

There is some argument that some form of cannon may be permissible because some people did own them in colonial days (rather few I think, due to their cost). And the early Militia Acts defined one company of cannon to a division, but it does not specify who would own them (only that those artillerymen furnish themselves with good horses of at least fourteen hands and an half high, and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols, the holsters of which to be covered with bearskin caps.

Arms like Stinger missles, bazookas, TOW/HEAT rockets and artillery certainly are unusual weapons which do not have much practical use in non-military life. Comparisons between a .22 Bolt and an M-16 are certainly valid. Comparing a .22 Bolt gun to a stinger system is like comparing a '64 VW with a glass-cockpitted Caddilac northstar.


1"Unusual and dangerous weapons" - all weapons should be dangerous to those opposing them. However the court very likely meant weapons that produce more danger than one would experience by typical firearms."

 

[Webleymkv]

Quote:
Not effectively, and the ruling itself was illigitimate.

Quote:
A unanimous decision in which only one side presents arguments before the court doesn't sound the least bit odd to you?

Miller was arrested for violating the NFA. The case went to the Supreme Court because Miller said the NFA unconstitutionally infringed upon the 2A and the NFA was upheld. In fact the law is still in full force and will be in the future I suspect. This is the law of the land and Scalia did not change that.

Scalia did not address it because the NFA did not fall within the scope of Heller. To do so would be the "legislating from the bench" that most of us seem to be opposed to. The NFA was upheld as a revenue generating measure. Other such measures like the poll taxes publius42 spoke of have been struck down giving legal precident for the same thing to happen to the NFA. As I implied earlier, if an impartial court were allowed to hear both sides of the argument, I think Miller may have turned out quite differently.

Quote:
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.

I think they will see you as having an extreme and untenable position concerning the Second Amendment.

That is nothing more than your opinion, an opinion which the majority of those posting here do not share.

What I hope they see most importantly is that not everyone who owns a gun has such an illogical position as do you and many others on this board about the extent of the RKBA. If someone like me doesn't speak out against some of the extreme stuff that is posted on this board, my concern is that fear of the extreme positions like you hold will cause Mr. Citizen and the courts to pass even more restrictions against us. Your position while you are freely entitled to it hurts the common cause of gun ownership as it invites fear and more restrictions.

My fear is that if other gun owners hear nothing but defeatist attitudes like yours and appeasment agendas like yours then they will too easily accept further erosion of our rights.

BTW I speak out on the T&T board when I see the "lets go shoot somebody" posts that occaisionally spring up there. That is just as bad to our cause as the unrestricted access to military weapons positions.

That's irrelevant to the discussion as neither Tactics nor Training (a forum which I have rarely if ever posted in) is being discussed.

Weren't AR15's designed for military use?

Read my post again. I spoke to operation not model.


Quote:
Could the operation of most weapons not find it's roots in military use?

No in fact some weapons the military adopted were originally civilian. Like the lever action rifle. Full auto was developed solely for use by the military with no civilian application.

If I'm not mistaken, both the Spencer and Henry rifles were developed or at least found their first widespread use during the Civil War.

Quote:
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".

Maybe you should dialogue more with them. They outnumber you.

Unsupported speculation.

Quote:
You are a confessed possessor of an AR15. At least that is your claim. So those groups would work against you just as hard as they'd work against someone who owned an M16.

At one time you might have been right. I don't think so now. Hunters are beginning to see they need common cause with shooters. The AR-15 is not an issue with them anymore I think. Military weapons are another issue altogether and have no relation tothe AR-15.

Unsupported speculation and misinformation.

Quote:
So you don't agree with how the 86 law is written?

I don't think it is unconstitutional but I think it was a dumb law. Repeal it if you don't want it. BTW the NRA agreed to let it pass to get the FOPA which they thought to be more important. That's kind of my position, more important things to fight over than somebody's right to own a stinger, like keeping my CCL.

I disagree with the NRA and think they should've pushed for a clean bill like the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act." Perhaps if it weren't for defeatist attitudes like your own, you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not you will be able to keep your CCL (or whether you even needed one to lawfully carry a firearm).

Quote:
So semiautos were not designed for military use?

Nope. They were around way before the military adopted them. I think the reasoning was the brass thought they wasted ammo.

The Luger and Mauser C96 were the first successful semi-auto pistols that I'm aware of and both were heavily marketed to the military. The Mondragon Rifle was the first successful semi-automatic rifle and was used by German Aircraft crews during WWI.

Quote:
Please explain for all of us here how the AR15 and the M16 have no relation.

One is a machinegun the other is not. Pretty simple.

That is the key difference but does not illustrate a complete lack of relation. Try again.

Quote:
Now, everyone has to go through a background check to purchase any new firearms.

Not with private sales.

emphasis added

How many non-FFL's are able to get brand new pistols from the manufacturer or distributor? Do you propose a required background check on private sales? So long as it's not too ponderous, ridiculous, or expensive I wouldn't necessarily oppose it.

Quote:
Law abiding civilians owning full autos was not a problem problem prior to 1934.

Few if any owned them. See my previous posts.

Yet more poorly or completely unsupported speculation.

Quote:
Why do we need "extra" scrutiny for full auto's?

See previous posts.

No good answers or logical arguments to be found.

Quote:
There are still groups of gunowners who would sell other gun owners down the river just because they don't fancy the same types of firearms.

Nobody has sold you down the river. Go buy an M-16 if you wish. Nobody is stopping you.

Actually, by the use of an overly complicated procedure, an unreasonably high tax (at the time it was instituted), and artificially inflated prices through a limited supply most lawful gunowners have had machineguns placed beyond their reach and banned if indirectly.

Yeah I understand the way some hunters feel but that is changing as people who shoot are about the same number as those who hunt.

Unsupported speculation.

 

[Yellowfin]

Full auto was developed solely for use by the military with no civilian application.

Wrong. See Thompson ads pre 1934. They were deliberately marketed to ranchers, railroad guards, bankers, and cops.