2nd Amendment Regulation

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This is not a legal argument, however, it's your list of preferences.

I guess it is Mr. Heller's too because his attorney Alan Gura argued as such. The fact is, full auto weapons are regulated, will continue to be heavily regulated for the foreseeable future and so you can call it what you wish. It is the law AND my preference.

The Second Amendment says nothing about civilian self-defense.

Nor does it say civilians have a right to own whatever weapons the military has either.

 

[mvpel]

When the 2nd Amendment was written, most of the things mentioned in the OP didn't exist; the "arms" they were referring to were muskets and single shot pistols ... because they could not see into the future, do you feel the wording of the amendment pertains today WITHOUT any controls at all? Should I be able to go buy a fully automatic rifle, based on the wording of the 2nd amendment? Did the founding father imagine a handgun that could carry 15-20 rounds of ammunition that could be fired in just a few seconds?

They had enormous cannons capable of firing chain- or grape-shot that would shred anything within its range into bloody gobbets. They had exploding artillery shells, though not well-developed or reliable ones at that time. The whole concept of "letters of marque & reprisal" presupposes the private ownership of heavily armed warships complete with "crew-served" weaponry.

Did the founding fathers imagine high-speed printing presses that could produce 15-20,000 copies of a libelous, reputation-destroying article in less than an hour? Did they imagine the Internet which could spread libel to all corners of the planet and beyond (the ISS has a 2Mb/s internet link to Houston) in less than the blink of an eye?

The form in which the exercise of the right takes has absolutely no bearing on the fundamental principle underlying the right.

That principle underlying the individual right to arms is that the individual, not the State, is the ultimate source of power and authority, and that governments of right derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, in order to secure and defend the fundamental rights of those who established it.

If I have no right or authority to own a machine gun, a howitzer, or a MOAB, then how is it conceivable that my employees, charged with the duty of protecting my rights, have the right or authority to own a machine gun, howitzer, or MOAB?

It's a simple fact that within the living memory of our parents, one could purchase a 20mm anti-tank rifle and ammunition mail-order - the order form is reproduced in the book "Unintended Consequences" - and there was no blood running in the streets as the antis would have you believe.

Just because it gives you the willies for whatever irrational reason doesn't have any relevance to the issue.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle1997/le970615-06.html

Last time, M.C. wrote in, from back East, asking whether any logical reading of the Second Amendment doesn't also guarantee individual Americans the right to own mortars, howitzers, and even nuclear weapons.

It certainly does.

The real question is: Why does this bother us?

Such weapons now exist, are widely dispersed, and are under the control of common, mortal men. What makes us think God has sent us a special race of angels, called "officers of the government," who can be better trusted with these weapons, than you or me? Do you really believe Bill Clinton is of sterner moral fiber than you or me? Or some Air Force enlisted man, on a ladder in a missile silo, retrofitting new fuses on a nuclear warhead?

How about the president of France? He has nuclear weapons. Do you or I know for a fact that he isn't some kind of secret, unbalanced speed freak? Didn't they just elect a bunch of giddy Socialists, over there? How about the president of the Ukraine?

We don't know these guys from Adam, yet we implicitly trust them, because they "work for a government."

What nonsense.

I guess it is Mr. Heller's too because his attorney Alan Gura argued as such.

Any first-year law student understands that sometimes you may be forced to concede or argue in favor of points that are irrelevant to your case, regardless of how you feel about those points, in order to win the points that are relevant to your case.

Constitutionally-acceptable restrictions on machine guns, regardless of how interesting the subject might be, was completely irrelevant to the issue of simple possession of operable, loaded handguns in one's own home.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If I have no right or authority to own a machine gun, a howitzer, or a MOAB, then how is it conceivable that my employees, charged with the duty of protecting my rights, have the right or authority to own a machine gun, howitzer, or MOAB?

Because they are controlled and restrained by something you are not: namely the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Last time, M.C. wrote in, from back East, asking whether any logical reading of the Second Amendment doesn't also guarantee individual Americans the right to own mortars, howitzers, and even nuclear weapons.

It certainly does.

The real question is: Why does this bother us?

It bothers me because I am not a Libertarian (although I agree with some of their views) and that is the philosophy this person is espousing. I would agree that it could also be called "The Lunatic Fringe".

Any first-year law student understands that sometimes you may be forced to concede or argue in favor of points that are irrelevant to your case, regardless of how you feel about those points, in order to win the points that are relevant to your case.

Maybe you should read Gura's response to the criticism of his conceding that point. Don't like the NFA, repeal it, but the courts won't do it for you.

 

[mvpel]

Because they are controlled and restrained by something you are not: namely the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

I'm controlled and restrained by something: the United States Code, Title 18, among others. What's your point? What's so special about the Uniform Code of Military Justice that it so heavily outweighs the death-penalty provisions set forth in USC Title 18?

The extent of "control and restraint" in both cases is the same - self-control arising from either individual moral sensibilities or fear of punishment. Words on paper are not what restrains me from committing crimes.

And for that matter, I would submit to you that what's lunacy is having a person with the moral fiber of Bill Clinton or Vladimir Putin with his finger on the button of thousands of nuclear weapons, not the principle that the power of governments are derived from the people who established them.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I'm controlled and restrained by something: the United States Code, Title 18, among others. What's your point? What's so special about the Uniform Code of Military Justice that it so heavily outweighs the death-penalty provisions set forth in USC Title 18?

The UCMJ is far more restrictive than other Federal Law. You should read up on it. Hell, I can go to jail under UCMJ for "insulting the President"!

I would submit to you that what's lunacy is having a person with the moral fiber of Bill Clinton or Vladimir Putin with his finger on the button of thousands of nuclear weapons, not the principle that the power of governments are derived from the people who established them.

Don't vote for him. We get the government we deserve. He passed the only muster he had to to be President, he won the election.

 

[HKuser]

Maybe you should read Gura's response to the criticism of his conceding that point. Don't like the NFA, repeal it, but the courts won't do it for you.

I read it. He's wrong, unless he's not expecting to win, which is also quite possible. If he does manage to win, and if strict scrutiny is applied, another big "if," then there's a good shot at reforming NFA in the courts. I'm not saying "no restrictions" but the jurisprudence must be coherent under a strict scrutiny standard. Few are willing to take to time to analyze what would that framework look like, though it would be an interesting exercise.

 

[Yellowfin]

I'd venture to say that more murders worldwide are committed without firearms than with, and even among those that are that 99% aren't committed by legally owned ones. It is abundantly clear that the vast majority of suicides occur in non-firearms oriented countries and in the abscence of firearms. Further, more people are unjustifiably killed by military and police across the span of human history than any other single source of unnatural death. Guns don't kill people, governments kill people.

 

[mvpel]

The UCMJ is far more restrictive than other Federal Law. You should read up on it. Hell, I can go to jail under UCMJ for "insulting the President"!

Still, what's the point? Words on paper aren't what prevents a soldier from insulting the president - the restraint comes from either his personal moral fiber or the fear of going to jail.

Is the punishment for misuse of weaponry more severe under the UCMJ than under Title 18? Mass murder is mass murder regardless of whether or not you wear a uniform, and you can only execute someone once.

In other words, the same restraints against the misuse of large weaponry are just as applicable to government employees as to private citizens.

 

[Old Timer]

Quote:
Since you proclaimed that firearms are the "number one way" people murder each other and that they're "efficient at doing that," perhaps you'd be so kind as to provide some documentation showing both what percentage of homicides firearms are used in and what percentage of gunshot wounds are fatal.

Why don't you go look it up.

Okay. 67% of homicides are gun related. 25% of gunshot wounds are fatal. DOJ

 

[Old Timer]

The Second Amendment says nothing about civilian self-defense.

I disagree. All defense is, untimately, self defense.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I read it. He's wrong,

How is he wrong? Are you a lawyer? How would you have answered Jusitce Ginsberg?

I'm not saying "no restrictions" but the jurisprudence must be coherent under a strict scrutiny standard

And that would be....? You really haven't offered anything about NFA other than "reforming" it and telling me I know nothing about strict scrutiny. Please spell out how strict scrutiny would apply in rendering unconstitutional the 1934 NFA.

Still, what's the point? Words on paper aren't what prevents a soldier from insulting the president

True with any law. Are you saying we should have no laws?

In other words, the same restraints against the misuse of large weaponry are just as applicable to government employees as to private citizens.

You are not arguing restraint but punishment after the fact. Within the military, troop behavior is much more regulated than Joe Sixpack. Within the military, troops are controlled and monitored much more than civilians. As a result they are safer in most regards than uncontrolled civilians. If you let Joe Sixpack own nukes and he decides one day to crank it off he will and then your punishment will come after the fact. In the military weapons are controlled to the nth degree. That is why the James Bond Thunderball scenarios have never happened because of the control exercised by the structure of the military.

Okay. 67% of homicides are gun related. 25% of gunshot wounds are fatal. DOJ

My point is made.

 

[wpcexpert]

RDak...please explain...

However, firearms in the hands of law abiding citizens, for self-defense and militia purposes, are arguably designed to save lives. They do so by killing criminals and invaders

So, where exactly are you explaining how guns aren't for killing. You said that they are designed to save lives...but by inherently killing someone else.

Not saying that I don't somewhat agree, but if you elaborated a bit more, it might make a better arguement.

I HOPE WE ALLcan learn something from eachother. Even though our individual views may be different and restrictive from subject to subject, we all share a common goal and agenda. I hope that all these heated discussions aren't just reserved our friends here on TFL. I hope that we take all the ammunition and the wealth of information we share with one another and use it in combat against our common enemies.

The Anti's have an advantage over us. They all have the same exact goal, to the letter. "NO GUNS, Period" Our goals are muttled. We will never agree whole-heartedly on every subject. But we must not forget to fight the Anti's, while we are arguing over the details.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But we must not forget to fight the Anti's, while we are arguing over the details.

Amen, I write the Nashville Tennessean about every other week on some dumb thing they put in their editorials. Unfortunately, my responses are often outnumbered by personal vulgar attacks by gun supporters against the writers or some from the fringes who think we should be able to own nukes. The antis aren't so monolithic as you might think and their rhetoric is not as it once was. I don't believe that everyone associated with the anti-gun movement wants the same thing(ban all guns). Same as with us in the gun world who don't feel like we need to repeal the NFA or own nukes. That's why it is fun to debate it

 

[wpcexpert]

I agree TG, but I'm a skeptic of somethings. On issues like this, I always go with worst case scenerio. I don't believe them that the overall goal is some guns. Cali is slowly working towards that feat. It's what I keep telling my wife, every win for them, no matter how small and insignificant it may seem, is still a win. It may just be a baby step, but it paves the way for another baby step and so on.

Obama just wants the handguns, these people just want the assault style rifles, these people just want .50 BMG's. It may appear that all of the anti's don't want them all but, "With Their Powers Combined, They Create, Captain Stupid". And then all the guns are gone.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Obama just wants the handguns, these people just want the assault style rifles, these people just want .50 BMG's. It may appear that all of the anti's don't want them all but, "With Their Powers Combined, They Create, Captain Stupid". And then all the guns are gone.

Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom

 

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Guns are dangerous because they are likely and able to produce harm and they are designed to do that. That is why we carry them for self-defense. BTW I have seen defective guns "go off" by themselves. If you and others here take the position that firearms are no more dangerous than toasters or spoons then I say that is faulty and unreal reasoning and you will never win the public debate with that line of thought and will invite more gun control laws.

I've seen defective automobiles do all sorts of dangerous things on their own, does that mean cars are inherently dangerous. A Ferarri is both able, and in certain hands, likely to break speed limits and do it in a much more efficient manner than most other cars. Should one be required to pay for an extra government permission slip to own a Ferarri as opposed to a Taurus? Almost anything can be dangerous if misused, or defective.

Why don't you go look it up.

Becuase you made the statement, not me. It is generally thought that the burden of proof lies upon the person making the claim.

Things like guns and other inanimate objects are not regulated because they are good or bad but because of the danger to the public safety.

How does the responsible ownership of a gun represent a danger to public safety. I assure you that it's quite easy to own and operate a machinegun without posing any danger to public safety whatsoever. Now, if the machinegun is used in an irresponsible manner it can be a great danger to public safety but so can any number of things. Doesn't it seem like a better idea to punish those who are irresponsible with their guns that to punish them along with the people who are responsible?

Instead of foolishly trying to convince them guns aren't dangerous, I say; Hell Yeah they're dangerous and that is why I practice with them and observe the safety rules and so on. However, I am also a law abiding citizen who will not misuse them and will safely carry them for self-defense and I will submit to some reasonable regulations of that right (like CCW permits).

The problem is that the rest of us don't view many of the regulations as reasonable. Perhaps we should focus more on keeping any gun out of the hands of dangerous people than on keeping certain guns out of the hands of almost everyone.

The original argument was about what are reasonable restrictions and I go along with the idea of weapons in common use and suitable for civilian self-defense.

Herin lies the rub, how does one decide exactly what weapons are suitable for civilian self-defense? A lot of that is dependant upon who or what a civilian needs to defend himself from. Is it impossible that many weapons not in common use would be if not for the overly restrictive laws pertaining to them? Besides, last time I checked the 2nd Amendment didn't read "the right to keep and bear arms suitable for civilian self-defense shall not be infringed." You still have as of yet to tell us why I should be restricted from owning something that causes no one else any harm nor infringes upon anyone else's rights.

I think the courts and legislatures will agree with me and I think my position is right. Many of you do not and I knew that when I posted but many gun owners like me don't buy into all the progun positions many of you hold that would remove almost every firearm regulation from the books. We don't always post here cause we don't have time to argue with all of you but I post from time to time just to let some of the zealots know there are other opinions. I don't believe in mental orthodoxy and I vote that way too. The gun owner world is a big tent and many of us do not believe there should be no restrictions at all on firearms ownership. Get used to it because we won't vote with you on everything you want.

When have any of us ever proposed getting rid of all firearms regulations? Most of us agree that violent criminals and the dangerously insane should be prohibited from owning a firearm. Likewise most of us agree that the ownership of weapons whose mere presense represents an urgent public safety hazard (like nukes, biological or chemical agents, and certain types of explosives) should be heavily regulated or prohibited. However, a sane, law abiding citizen owning a machinegun fits neither of these criteria so we see no reason for it to be so severely regulated. While this may sound like zealotry to you, I don't believe that the majority of the American public would think so if the reasoning behind it is clearly and calmly explained.

Originally posted by bikerbill

A question for the original poster or anybody else ...

When the 2nd Amendment was written, most of the things mentioned in the OP didn't exist; the "arms" they were referring to were muskets and single shot pistols ... because they could not see into the future, do you feel the wording of the amendment pertains today WITHOUT any controls at all? Should I be able to go buy a fully automatic rifle, based on the wording of the 2nd amendment? Did the founding father imagine a handgun that could carry 15-20 rounds of ammunition that could be fired in just a few seconds?

I'm not making the argument, so don't yell at me ... I'm just raising a question ... and if I was sitting on the Supreme Court, I'd imagine one of my fellow justices might have raised it too ...

While they may or may not have been able to envision the weapons of today, I find it hard to believe that the Framers, who were brilliant enough to produce an elastic constitution that's lasted two centuries, didn't give any consideration to advances in weapons design. As I've stated earlier I believe that "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" is an explanation of the purpose of the amendment rather than instruction for its execution. Tyranny is typically carried out by military force, and what better weapon to combat military force than a military weapon.

Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman

Nor does it say civilians have a right to own whatever weapons the military has either.

Actually, it does. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed beyond reason" because what one person finds reasonable may be quite unreasonable to the next. As I've stated before, so long as a weapon's mere presence represents no public safety hazard, it falls under the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Okay. 67% of homicides are gun related. 25% of gunshot wounds are fatal. DOJ

My point is made.

Does anyone have a link? So does 67% mean that 67% of homicides are comitted with a gun or just that a gun was involved somehow or another (i.e someone was trying to steal one and stabbed it rightful owner)? "Gun related" sounds sucspiciously vauge to me.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I've seen defective automobiles do all sorts of dangerous things on their own, does that mean cars are inherently dangerous.

There you go again. Equating a firearm with another unrelated object. Its not about being defective either. Guns are designed to kill, cars are designed to transport. This is a very easy concept to grasp. Cars can be dangerous and are in fact heavily regulated by umpteen safety regulations. If you go down the automobile is like a firearm route then you like Bill Clinton will determine that firearms should be licensed and registered. Just like cars!

You still have as of yet to tell us why I should be restricted from owning something that causes no one else any harm nor infringes upon anyone else's rights.

You have yet to make the case for overturning NFA thru strict scrutiny like you asked me to do.

While this may sound like zealotry to you, I don't believe that the majority of the American public would think so if the reasoning behind it is clearly and calmly explained.

This is funny. You think the majority of the American People support the unrestricted ownership of automatic weapons? You have been on this board way too long. Not a snowballs chance in hell you would ever get the votes to overturn the NFA, now or after Heller.

Actually, it does. It says "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Subject to the interpretation of the SCOTUS. That phrase does not give gun owners carte blanche to own any weapon they can afford. How much you want to bet the NFA will still be around even way after Heller?

so long as a weapon's mere presence represents no public safety hazard

Based on who's opinion? The antis say all guns present public saftey hazards!

I assure you that it's quite easy to own and operate a machinegun without posing any danger to public safety whatsoever

Same thing for stingers and grenade launchers? If a nuke could be made easy to maintain (and the small ones are) and not emit radiation (and they don't) could we then have them? What about land mines and tanks? Unrestricted ownership of those too?

A lot of that is dependant upon who or what a civilian needs to defend himself from.

Any firearm in common civilian use today would meet any reasonably foreseen threat (not aliens from Mars) an american civilian might face. I have no doubt of that.

that the ownership of weapons whose mere presense represents an urgent public safety hazard

Please define urgent public safety hazard? Why can't "responsible citizens" keep them safely?

 

[Webleymkv]

There you go again. Equating a firearm with another unrelated object. Its not about being defective either. Guns are designed to kill, cars are designed to transport. This is a very easy concept to grasp.

You're missing the point. The point is that anything can be dangerous if defective of misused. A shovel is dangerous if someone hits you over the head with it. Just because something is potentially dangerous, that does not mean that it's access to law abiding citizens should be severely restricted.

Cars can be dangerous and are in fact heavily regulated by umpteen safety regulations. If you go down the automobile is like a firearm route then you like Bill Clinton will determine that firearms should be licensed and registered. Just like cars!

And firearms are subject to the same consumer safety regulations as any other number of products. What Bill Clinton fails to take into account is that automibiles are not protected by an amendment to the Constitution.

You have yet to make the case for overturning NFA thru strict scrutiny like you asked me to do.

Actually, I did when I stated the following in post #43

The problem is that restrictions on full-auto and most types of explosives are, in one way or another, punishing people for a crime that they have not yet committed. It is not overly hard to own or operate a machinegun, greanade, or even rocket launcher safely with no harm to anyone else. So long as I have a proper range in which to operate them (which is required for a flintlock rifle or bow and arrow), no one is put at risk by my lawful use of them. Why should I be restricted (and therfore punished) when I have not and am not harming or infringing upon the rights of anyone else?

This is funny. You think the majority of the American People support the unrestricted ownership of automatic weapons? You have been on this board way too long. Not a snowballs chance in hell you would ever get the votes to overturn the NFA, now or after Heller.

You're not hearing me, I said that I think the majority of the American People would support less restriction on fully-automatic weapons if the reasoning was explained to them. I have never proposed a complete lack of restrictions on firearms, just very few.

Subject to the interpretation of the SCOTUS. That phrase does not give gun owners carte blanche to own any weapon they can afford. How much you want to bet the NFA will still be around even way after Heller?

SCOTUS can interpret it any way they want, it does not change the Framer's intent nor does it change how it should be.

Based on who's opinion? The antis say all guns present public saftey hazards!

So how does a firearm sitting on a table all by itself represent a public safety hazard?

Same thing for stingers and grenade launchers? If a nuke could be made easy to maintain (and the small ones are) and not emit radiation (and they don't) could we then have them? What about land mines and tanks? Unrestricted ownership of those too?

Yes, actually it is the same for stingers and grenade launchers. They're not going to go off all by themselves when stored in my home and, given an adequate range, they're perfectly safe to fire. What range can you go to to practice with your nuke? Landmines and Tanks are the same as machineguns and explosiveserfectly safe to own and operate with an adequate firing range. Doesn't any projectile weapon require an adequate firing range to operate it safely or do you practice with your firearms in your bedroom?

Any firearm in common civilian use today would meet any reasonably foreseen threat (not aliens from Mars) an american civilian might face. I have no doubt of that.

So just what is a reasonably forseen threat? I think that an invading army or tyrannical government, while unlikely, is a reasonably possible threat. If faced with such a threat, wouldn't it be nice to be able to arm yourself with more than a sporting rifle?

Please define urgent public safety hazard? Why can't "responsible citizens" keep them safely?

An urgent public safety hazard is presented by arms whose ownership and/or proper operation may cause disease, injury and/or death to unintended targets. It would be nearly impossible to detonate a nuclear, biological, or chemical device in this country without putting the lives of innocent people at risk. Likewise, how do propose someone should safely store VX nerve gas in their home?

 

[YukonKid]

How have my second amendment rights been infringed upon Webley? I hunt more than ever, I have purchased more guns this year than any other, I do not see weapons going away.

I personally think I could do more damage with my Yukon or Silverado then ever could with a firearm, but that is aside the point I guess.

YK

 

[crashm1]

I'm on the side of the 2A absolutists. It seems very clear when reading the writings of the framers at the time that they intended the "people" had the option to be as well armed as the army and that the purpose was to be a check on a tyrannical government similar to or worse than the one they had just revolted against.
From 1981 to 1984 the US government trusted me to safely use a variety of fully automatic firearms as well various anti tank missiles and explosives. Why is it after becoming a civilian I have to petition that same government and pay a tax to own and use the exact same weapons? Why restrict the ownership and use of a type of firearm used in less than .00000001% of "gun crime" it makes no more sense than banning sport utility rifles (long guns are used in less than 2% of violent crimes and SURs are a tiny fraction of that percentage).
I have no illusions that Heller will result in my being able to buy an M16 next week for less than 12,000 bucks but I have hopes that if strict scrutiny is the standard that at some point in the next 5 or 10 years that I will be able to afford at least one rifle with the fun switch for not much more than the cost of an AR. I still won't be able to afford to feed it often but it's having the option I think is important. In retrospect I should have been paying more attention to gun rights back in the day because I would have bought a bunch of stuff.