MedicineBow
New member
Whether anyone likes it or not, it's hard to imagine some constitutional bar to having to undergo an indentity check to buy a firearm.
A pet peeve of mine. It is a strawman argument that I see a lot of progun people use and I think it makes us look bad. Firearms are designed to kill things, people or animals. Target shooting and other sports are ancillary to why firearms exist IMHO. I think trying to equate them with other objects like hammers and scissors is not valid and I think we are smarter than that.Of course there is a big difference between a computer and a firearm, and we all know the difference. There's a big difference between a machete and a firearm. There's a big difference between a chainsaw and a firearm. What's your point?
I think we actually need to separate the legal term "felony" into two different categories, non violent felony and violent felony. If you get convicted of a violent felony you lose virtually all of your rights, including the right to keep and bear arms, free speech rights, and freedom of religion. I don't want violent felons going to listen to Reverend Wright lambast America. It could incite violent felons to commit act's of violence against America.
Another strawman. Losing some of your rights does not mean you lose them all. Even people in prison retain rights as citizens. No need to separate the felonies. If you commit one you lose those rights defined by law until and if you can get them restored.
On it's face, the NICS doesn't seem to be TOO dangerous to our liberties. But there is certainly potential for abuse by the government in the future, which would infringe upon our rights. At some point in time, when liberals have more control, you can bet their next step will be registration. This will be sold as a non threatening addition to the NICS. After all, if you are already submitting yourself to government scrutiny before you are allowed to purchase a firearm, why would you care that the government keeps a record of such a purchase, so long as you aren't planning on doing anything illegal?
NICs is also different from registration. NICs is a reasonable way to help keep firearms out of the hands of those who are legally prohibited from getting them. It also helps legit guns dealers from selling to them. Doesn't mean they won't get them anyway but they'll have to do it illegally which is another issue in itself. Registration is a much bigger step and not related to reigstration. NICS just establishes legal status.
And it imposes prior restraint on law-abiding citizens in an exercise of a fundamental constitutional right to boot.The NICS is virtually ineffective at stopping prohibited persons from getting a firearm.
But to impose restrictions and waiting periods on people who have done nothing wrong or illegal whatsoever seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
I never equated them. I just said that they can all be dangerous, depending upon what they are used for and how.
I call your strawman arguement and raise you one. I think we should definitely separate felonies. The threat to society by some felonies is certainly higher than others. The punishments should reflect that.
But to impose restrictions and waiting periods on people who have done nothing wrong or illegal whatsoever seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.
There are some slippery slopes out there regarding civil rights but full auto isn't one of them. I think the real argument that the antis have with so called assult weapons is the large magazine capacity although they often get confused on semi auto operation of a firearm. That said, I don't think that a heavy regulation on full auto will translate into losing all semi-auto firearms. We've had the full auto regulations in effect for 70 plus years and we still have semi-autos. I think there is a very clear and defineable difference with full auto and that is why I like Gura's standard involving the lineal decendants of the musket in his argument. The full auto folks ain't gonna get the NFA overturned thru the courts and I doubt they could ever muster support for it's repeal. I liked this quote:As I've discussed with TNGent before on the issue of select fire weapons, it is definitely a slippery slope that will lead to more restrictions, and prohibitions. If that sounds like paranoia, another AWB bill just was written and is waiting and hoping to be passed...there are lever gun and other CAS guns in there.
The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges.
You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change".
I think there is a very clear and defineable different with full auto and that is why I like Gura's standard involving the lineal decendants of the musket in his argument. The full auto folks ain't gonna get the NFA overturned thru the courts and I doubt they could ever muster support for it's repeal.
If we're talking strict scrutiny, not your druthers, how would NFA ever survive? Gura's argument here is simply untenable.
The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands.
The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.
Everything is illegal, including our current military semi-auto battle rifle....
Actually I think it is quite reasonable. Mainly because the nature of weaponry and warfare has changed and that would survive strict scrutiny. Technology and lethality to be short. These weapons restricted by the NFA were designed for pure military use (except maybe suppressors) and have no suitable civilian use. They are I maintain poor for self defense and hunting as well. They have only a military use.Quote:
If we're talking strict scrutiny, not your druthers, how would NFA ever survive? Gura's argument here is simply untenable.
Now:
Mr. Dellinger from DC would agree and then say that unless you are in the military you have no right to bear arms.Quote:
The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands.
I maintain weapons in common use by civilians meet that criteria.
The "druthers" issue you spoke about then comes into play when we say civilians have a right to military arms because it becomes your "druthers" on where to stop or regulate so now we all have nukes.
Do the strict scrutiny analysis then, spell it out.
Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.
Full auto arms are standard issue to every infantry on earth or nearly.
Not true. Engineer units had 'em and did you ever hear of the Davy Crockett?Nukes ain't, never have been, only been used twice in all history
Quote:
Well, I am not a lawyer but here goes.Do the strict scrutiny analysis then, spell it out.
Quote:
Not true. Engineer units had 'em and did you ever hear of the Davy Crockett?Nukes ain't, never have been, only been used twice in all history
That's only part of the equation. Firstly, where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to personal self defense? If you want to rewrite history for yourself, fine, but don't rewrite it for me or for the founders. The "military purposes" vs "personal defense" dichotomy is one invented in the last century by the gun-grabbers primarily as a result of the horribly-worded Miller case. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as written unless you read the Militia clause as a reference to an organized militia and as a limit on the operative clause, neither of which is tenable.Tennessee Gentleman said:Well, I am not a lawyer but here goes. First I would delink as Gura did the requirement to bear arms being only related to service in the militia. Then I would say that the right to bear arms emcompasses personal self defense. I would argue that weapons in common use by civilians now are sufficient for these purposes of self-defense. Full auto were designed purely for military uses and therefore the government might well ban or regulate them as a reasonable limitation of the second amendment.
That's only part of the equation. Firstly, where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to personal self defense? If you want to rewrite history for yourself, fine, but don't rewrite it for me or for the founders. The "military purposes" vs "personal defense" dichotomy is one invented in the last century by the gun-grabbers primarily as a result of the horribly-worded Miller case. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as written unless you read the Militia clause as a reference to an organized militia and as a limit on the operative clause, neither of which is tenable.
How does regulating full-auto serve the government's interest in preventing federal crimes? Seeing as how so few crimes are committed with full-auto firearms, and even fewer are committed with full-auto firearms legally owned by private citizens, it's very hard to make a case that any sort of regulation on full-auto weapons is necessary to achieve ANY objective, much less one that is constitutionally permissible.
Same with explosives. Bad people who are going to blow up things really don't care about the law, and explosives are not so hard to make that regulations can/will effectively stop them from being made.
Then someone comes along with the argument that just because it's hard to catch or stop people doesn't mean we shouldn't try. That's a fine argument when dealing with actual malum in se criminal transactions like violent crimes. Even though we may not be able to stop most murders, going after the perpetrators, no matter the success rate, is justifiable. There is a victim.
Going after people who own, buy, or make firearms or explosives is something else entirely. There is no evidence just from that that they intend to hurt anyone, and if there is, how about pursuing the matter on the basis of the (imminent) commission of a violent crime, rather than possession of inanimate objects?
One of the problems with the felony exclusion is the notion that a felony then was something reserved for heinous crimes. Today, a felony has almost lost its meaning, since the various legislatures have made almost everything under the sun, a felony.
happen to like and agree with the argument that Alan Gura made that established weapons in common use by civilians for self-defense/hunting/ traget etc. While I like machineguns and other NFA type weapons and do not wish for them to be banned (even though some here think full auto weapons have been by the FOPA "86) I have no problem with them being heavily regulated and in some cases banned. Gura was also criticized for conceding that point but I liked his answer. If you don't like the 1934 NFA then repeal the law. He didn't think and I don't think you will get any public or court support to legalize without restrictions those NFA weapons. I maintain that those weapons were designed for military use and are not suitable for civilian self-defense and so I don't think the second amendment applies. My two cents.
The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.
I think this country, as a whole, is has done right by us in that aspect. I mean now, as to what we have, the extremist states excluded. I can and do own assault style rifles, handguns, long range rifles. There are permits I can obtain for Fully automatic weapons if I choose. I don't see the need for anymore fire power than that. I can't imagine trying to defend my household against that kind of firepower. So I'm good with what we have right now
Mr. Dellinger from DC would agree and then say that unless you are in the military you have no right to bear arms. The SCOTUS correctly separated the militia clause from the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Therefore, Gura argued correctly when asked if any firearms could be restricted that yes those not in common civilian use or suitable for civilian self defense could be regulated.
The "druthers" issue you spoke about then comes into play when we say civilians have a right to military arms because it becomes your "druthers" on where to stop or regulate so now we all have nukes.
Lots of other weapons are too. Grenade Launchers, Stinger Missiles, Land mines. Should they be protected by the 2a?