Assault Weapons Ban
- Thread starter Micahweeks
- Start date
vranasaurus
New member
You are correct that Pelosi would love nothing more than to bring the ban back. The problem is she does not have the ability to pass it. Too many house members from her party will not support the ban making it impossible for her to pass it. Even if she did have the votes in the house there is no way it gets past the senate, where even the majority leader will not support it. Why waste precious political capital on a bill that has almost no chance of getting passed, especially when she and the president need all of that political capital to use on other parts of their agenda which are far more important to them. Why alienate conservative democratic congressman whose support you'll need to pass health care, energy, environmental legislation?
Micahweeks
New member
Well, there is catch. I have had classes on law and spent a little bit of time studying Constitutional law, and the most literal interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is this.
The people eligible to serve in the armed forces but not enlisted are considered by definition to be a "militia." According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one. So, militia is us, the citizens. We get the right to bear arms. However, the language of the document reserves the right of the federal government to see that we are "well regulated."
So, with that being said, I don't dislike EVERY form of gun "control." I do believe that the Federalists did not intend for granny to have a rocket launcher. So, I know that I probably made a ton of enemies by saying that I am not against EVERY form of regulation, but that is how I interpret the law. I don't see the need to own rocket launchers. I feel it is perfectly reasonable for citizens not to own hand grenades. I even feel that a background check is good regulation.
If you are inclined to read a rather lengthy analysis of the language of the 2nd Amendment, I had to write one a while back for a class. I posted it on my web site since it was pretty popular with my classmates.
http://www.micahweeks.com/?p=32
The people eligible to serve in the armed forces but not enlisted are considered by definition to be a "militia." According to the Constitution, the type of militia necessary to a free state is a "well regulated" one. So, militia is us, the citizens. We get the right to bear arms. However, the language of the document reserves the right of the federal government to see that we are "well regulated."
So, with that being said, I don't dislike EVERY form of gun "control." I do believe that the Federalists did not intend for granny to have a rocket launcher. So, I know that I probably made a ton of enemies by saying that I am not against EVERY form of regulation, but that is how I interpret the law. I don't see the need to own rocket launchers. I feel it is perfectly reasonable for citizens not to own hand grenades. I even feel that a background check is good regulation.
If you are inclined to read a rather lengthy analysis of the language of the 2nd Amendment, I had to write one a while back for a class. I posted it on my web site since it was pretty popular with my classmates.
http://www.micahweeks.com/?p=32
vranasaurus
New member
Based upon the vocabulary of the day "well regulated" meant "well trained". It had nothing to do with gun control.
And your interpretation runs counter to the Supreme Court's interpretation. The right to keep and bear arms is independent of service in the militia.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html
Frankly, you should just pretty much read everything at www.guncite.com as it addresses most of the points you raised, many of which are not novel as they have been raised by gun control activists in the past.
I'd also note that the interpretations you suggested were among the many amicus briefs filed in Heller vs. D.C. and after persuasive arguments on both sides, there were no takers (even among the dissenting opinion) arguing for the interpretation you put forth.
Finally, I'd say that your link discussing Obama's view of the Second Amendment gives short shrift to the fact that Obama supported a collective rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, even as the Heller case was being argued. He clearly wasn't relying on commas, well-regulated militias or anything else you suggest in your essay. He was flat out stating that only the National Guards and State Guards have any right to firearms under the Second Amendment.
Micahweeks
New member
On the contrary. The definition of militia included any eligible to serve regardless whether or not they were serving.
As for my interpretation, you have to understand that my major at the time I wrote the above article was linguistics. My class examined this language several times and in great detail. All of our findings say that "well-regulated", in fact, meant just that. This was evidenced by the recorded discussions and discourse between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. You are correct that, in many cases, possibly most, the term was also used to refer to being well trained. The question is in which context was it used. Written records seem to indicate that regulation was the intent, although it is possible this is not case.
As for my interpretation not being in line with the Supreme Court's, I am well aware of that. I believe it to be a group of pundits using the position of justice to enforce personal moral codes and political agendas. So, yes. I'm in conflict with their interpretation. I find that they deliberately take the Constitution out of context quite often to accomplish personal ends. I don't want to veer off topic, but to cite one example, abortion was ruled constitutional based on your freedom of search of seizure. I'm not trying to debate abortion, here. I'm just using it as an example of how they have used bad law to make rulings. I believe that they, in the same way, make bad law rulings by using deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
All of this is the reason I wonder about the AWB. It is clearly not beyond the power of the federal government to regulate handguns, but the question is to what end? What is too much regulation? Obviously, as evidenced over a decade ago, the people felt the AWB was too much. So, where do we draw the line. I can't in good conscious say that ALL gun control measures are bad. Background checks are fine, to me, and prevent felons from purchasing handguns from local stores. My right to bear arms was not infringed by me having a background check run. The guns in my case state something quite contrary to that. How can we hope to appear reasonable if we would fight EVERY form of gun control or regulation regardless of how sensible it may seem?
As for my interpretation, you have to understand that my major at the time I wrote the above article was linguistics. My class examined this language several times and in great detail. All of our findings say that "well-regulated", in fact, meant just that. This was evidenced by the recorded discussions and discourse between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. You are correct that, in many cases, possibly most, the term was also used to refer to being well trained. The question is in which context was it used. Written records seem to indicate that regulation was the intent, although it is possible this is not case.
As for my interpretation not being in line with the Supreme Court's, I am well aware of that. I believe it to be a group of pundits using the position of justice to enforce personal moral codes and political agendas. So, yes. I'm in conflict with their interpretation. I find that they deliberately take the Constitution out of context quite often to accomplish personal ends. I don't want to veer off topic, but to cite one example, abortion was ruled constitutional based on your freedom of search of seizure. I'm not trying to debate abortion, here. I'm just using it as an example of how they have used bad law to make rulings. I believe that they, in the same way, make bad law rulings by using deliberate misinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
All of this is the reason I wonder about the AWB. It is clearly not beyond the power of the federal government to regulate handguns, but the question is to what end? What is too much regulation? Obviously, as evidenced over a decade ago, the people felt the AWB was too much. So, where do we draw the line. I can't in good conscious say that ALL gun control measures are bad. Background checks are fine, to me, and prevent felons from purchasing handguns from local stores. My right to bear arms was not infringed by me having a background check run. The guns in my case state something quite contrary to that. How can we hope to appear reasonable if we would fight EVERY form of gun control or regulation regardless of how sensible it may seem?
Micahweeks
New member
Well, Roberts, I certainly respect your opinion. You seem to be a learned, well-spoken citizen. 
I understand all of the arguments put forth at guncite and have read them before. The problem is that linguistics doesn't really function properly if you use obviously biased sources for interpretation. To interpret the Constitution literally and in the context in which it was written requires that one throws out all current discussion on the matter and disregard passionate opinions. I have a very passionate opinion about the government trying to take my guns. From my cold, dead fingers. But, in an academic setting dealing with a scientific study of language, I can not include influence from guncite or any websites stating views contrary to that. I can only deal with the language, and, in the English language, commas change meaning easily.
I cite this example.
My dog bit John's girl. (Someone's dog took a bite out of John's child).
My dog bit John's, girl. (Someone speaking to a female and informing her that the dog bit John's dog.)
Or how about this one:
My dog hit that fool. (A dog possibly ran into a man?)
My dog, hit that fool. (An inner city thug ordering his buddy to strike someone).
My dog hit that, fool. (Another thug talking about how his friend had sex with someone, which introduces slang, an entirely different beast.)
As you can see, from an academic stand-point, someone studying linguistics can not ignore the commas. Thus, my essay's interpretation.
I understand all of the arguments put forth at guncite and have read them before. The problem is that linguistics doesn't really function properly if you use obviously biased sources for interpretation. To interpret the Constitution literally and in the context in which it was written requires that one throws out all current discussion on the matter and disregard passionate opinions. I have a very passionate opinion about the government trying to take my guns. From my cold, dead fingers. But, in an academic setting dealing with a scientific study of language, I can not include influence from guncite or any websites stating views contrary to that. I can only deal with the language, and, in the English language, commas change meaning easily.
I cite this example.
My dog bit John's girl. (Someone's dog took a bite out of John's child).
My dog bit John's, girl. (Someone speaking to a female and informing her that the dog bit John's dog.)
Or how about this one:
My dog hit that fool. (A dog possibly ran into a man?)
My dog, hit that fool. (An inner city thug ordering his buddy to strike someone).
My dog hit that, fool. (Another thug talking about how his friend had sex with someone, which introduces slang, an entirely different beast.)
As you can see, from an academic stand-point, someone studying linguistics can not ignore the commas. Thus, my essay's interpretation.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Actually, from an historical perspective you SHOULD ignore the commas. The most important fact, historically, about commas is that there was NO, NONE, NADA, standard usage at the time the constitution was written. There can be almost no weight placed on the use, lack thereof, or placement of commas on documents from the era of the Constitution. A comma at that time meant little more than an indication that the writer wanted a comma there because he thought it was pretty.
vranasaurus
New member
When using the term well regulated with reference to the militia it most certainly meant well trained.
The 2A doesn't say anything about a well regulated right to keep and bear arms.
The 2A doesn't say anything about a well regulated right to keep and bear arms.
Micahweeks
New member
Close, Peetzakiller.
You refer to the virgula suspensiva. This was a slash used until the early 17th century to indicate nothing more than a pause in speaking. However, that context applies to Greek, specifically, written forms originating around Byzantium. While the comma used in English did descend from the same mark, it was seeing standard usage rules as early as the 1620s in official documents. The question is whether or not a historical document is using the comma as a divider or as an indicator of pause in speaking, a use it no longer has. Since the Constitution was a purely written document and was not designed to be given as a speech, it is possible that the commas are meant for the purpose of dividing clauses. It is equally possible that they are just being used out of habit as a result of writing many speeches.
You refer to the virgula suspensiva. This was a slash used until the early 17th century to indicate nothing more than a pause in speaking. However, that context applies to Greek, specifically, written forms originating around Byzantium. While the comma used in English did descend from the same mark, it was seeing standard usage rules as early as the 1620s in official documents. The question is whether or not a historical document is using the comma as a divider or as an indicator of pause in speaking, a use it no longer has. Since the Constitution was a purely written document and was not designed to be given as a speech, it is possible that the commas are meant for the purpose of dividing clauses. It is equally possible that they are just being used out of habit as a result of writing many speeches.
Micahweeks
New member
Man, I sure love linguistics, but this is way off topic. I am really wanting to get to the bottom of the AWB. I just don't buy that it is a dead issue. Obama made to many statements supporting it to make me believe that. I also want to know how it could be brought up as a measure to stop drug cartels from getting hand grenades.
Well, here is another question along the lines of this thread. How much regulation is TOO much regulation? To what degree do you think regulation is permissible under the 2nd Amendment? Is the AWB all bad, or parts of it acceptable regulation? I don't think it is acceptable at all as it doesn't really accomplish anything, but someone may disagree.
Well, here is another question along the lines of this thread. How much regulation is TOO much regulation? To what degree do you think regulation is permissible under the 2nd Amendment? Is the AWB all bad, or parts of it acceptable regulation? I don't think it is acceptable at all as it doesn't really accomplish anything, but someone may disagree.
vranasaurus
New member
If you read Heller Scalia mentions "dangerous or unusual". Whether a ban on "assault weapons" were permissable would depend on if they were considered dangerous or unusual.
Judging by numbers in circulation "assault weapons" are not unusual at all. And they are certainly no more dangerous than any other firearm.
Some things obviously fit into the D/U castegory, some are on the line, and some are obviously not.
Judging by numbers in circulation "assault weapons" are not unusual at all. And they are certainly no more dangerous than any other firearm.
Some things obviously fit into the D/U castegory, some are on the line, and some are obviously not.
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
Let's substitue the term "well-regulated" with "heavily legislated" and see if the Second still makes any sense given the context it was written in.
A heavily legislated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So if we assume your comma argument as well, we now have:
A heavily legislated militia shall not be infringed.
Now please explain to me how this interpretation is supposed to assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists (the whole purpose of the Second Amendment after all)?
A heavily legislated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So if we assume your comma argument as well, we now have:
A heavily legislated militia shall not be infringed.
Now please explain to me how this interpretation is supposed to assuage the fears of the Anti-Federalists (the whole purpose of the Second Amendment after all)?
Anytime the government tries to restrict Normal Law Abiding Citizens from possessing the tools in which we would need to forcibly take the government back for the people. It is assumed that we would be up against our own military, or whoever is left in the military that swears loyalty to the government and not the people. To that end, I feel that all man-portable small arms that are not explosive ordinance should be fair for us to possess that we may be competative should that need ever arise. Some would argue that we should be allowed to possess anything the government possesses... I'm not quiet in that ballpark or camp.
I do not have a problem with background checks. Heck, if they would regulate EBRs the same way they did pistols I wouldn't really have any strokes over it. The only major issue is this... it's pretty much proven fact that assault weapons are used in less than 1% of violent crimes. Do the benefits REALLY outweigh the risks? (stopping 1 murder per year vs. having the tools to keep government honest).
In the end, I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm not calling for a revolution, nor am I suggesting that the time to rise against the government is near, is coming, or should ever come. All I am saying is that supporting documents to the constitution give exact basis as to why we should have the RKBA. It's pretty pervasive throughout GW, TJ, TP, BF, and other signers of the documents' writings.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
In other words, what I said. There was no standard usage. If there was then we would SURELY know the intent thereof in a document as important as the basis for an entire nation.
To answer your question about "What is acceptable?" Very little is acceptable. I would be no more dangerous with a rocket launcher than I am with a BB gun. A background check to verify a history of lawfulness (which of course is no guarantee of tomorrow), is the only acceptable limitation. Cash flow would limit the vast majority of weapons, regardless. What would be the purpose of limiting, for instance, the ownership of M1 tanks? VERY, very few people could afford one, let alone the fuel and shells. Those with that level of cash, who complete the background check, are pretty friggin' unlikely to start blasting away in downtown LA.
Micahweeks
New member
5whiskey, I kind of feel the way you do.
The biggest part of the AWB that I don't understand is the magazine capacity restriction. Let's say my carry gun hold 15 rounds in the mag. Well, now there is a restriction to 10. If I wanted to carry 30 rounds, I would carry two mags pre-ban or three mags post-ban. It doesn't really do anything.
I think, and I may be wrong, the logic behind things like prohibiting rocket launchers and tanks is that you want to prevent a criminal with vast amounts of cash (drug cartel leaders, mafias, etc.) from being able to outfit their own personal militant groups. Now, you say that is the point of the background check, but some of these higher ups in the crime syndicates have never been convicted, only investigated or suspected. That has always been my understanding why citizens can not buy things like rocket launchers.
The biggest part of the AWB that I don't understand is the magazine capacity restriction. Let's say my carry gun hold 15 rounds in the mag. Well, now there is a restriction to 10. If I wanted to carry 30 rounds, I would carry two mags pre-ban or three mags post-ban. It doesn't really do anything.
I think, and I may be wrong, the logic behind things like prohibiting rocket launchers and tanks is that you want to prevent a criminal with vast amounts of cash (drug cartel leaders, mafias, etc.) from being able to outfit their own personal militant groups. Now, you say that is the point of the background check, but some of these higher ups in the crime syndicates have never been convicted, only investigated or suspected. That has always been my understanding why citizens can not buy things like rocket launchers.
I was following you, up until this...
I claim no great expertise in linguistics, being only a humble graduate of public school in the 1970s, BUT, at that time, and as far as I can tell, ever since, the comma's most common usage is as a visual indication of a pause in speaking.
Now while the comma has been determined to have other usages, particularly in parsing legal phrases, at the time the Constitution was written, I believe that it had no such significance.
I have a fine old geography book (an original), printed in May 1803, in Boston. The language used, both in spelling and punctuation is noticeably different from what is in common usage today. Therefore, I find that any attempt to apply the standards in use today to the language of the past is a serious error. As noted, there were several different usages common in the past, and no single standard that they were, or could be held to.
I find myself in basic agreement with the Heller ruling, stating that the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment is an explanation of why the right is important, and not a requirement for the right to exist.
I am in agreement with the proper role of government being able to regulate the ownership of certain things that fall under the general description of "arms". Where I disagree with many is which "arms" should be regulated, and how much.
And I am in complete disagreement with outright prohibitions, particularly when ordinary small arms are concerned. I find the govt. believing it to be right and proper that they can tell you that you cannot own a springloaded metal box above a certain size repugnant.
I claim no great expertise in linguistics, being only a humble graduate of public school in the 1970s, BUT, at that time, and as far as I can tell, ever since, the comma's most common usage is as a visual indication of a pause in speaking.
Now while the comma has been determined to have other usages, particularly in parsing legal phrases, at the time the Constitution was written, I believe that it had no such significance.
I have a fine old geography book (an original), printed in May 1803, in Boston. The language used, both in spelling and punctuation is noticeably different from what is in common usage today. Therefore, I find that any attempt to apply the standards in use today to the language of the past is a serious error. As noted, there were several different usages common in the past, and no single standard that they were, or could be held to.
I find myself in basic agreement with the Heller ruling, stating that the opening clause of the 2nd Amendment is an explanation of why the right is important, and not a requirement for the right to exist.
I am in agreement with the proper role of government being able to regulate the ownership of certain things that fall under the general description of "arms". Where I disagree with many is which "arms" should be regulated, and how much.
And I am in complete disagreement with outright prohibitions, particularly when ordinary small arms are concerned. I find the govt. believing it to be right and proper that they can tell you that you cannot own a springloaded metal box above a certain size repugnant.
Micahweeks
New member
I'm not applying the comma as it used today to a centuries old document. I already clarified that the comma was used to separate clauses as early as the 1600s. It would be foolish to apply today's grammar to something two hundred years old.
I do like your stance, 44, on reasonable regulation. Would you care to clarify just what types of firearms should or should not be regulated in your opinion?
I do like your stance, 44, on reasonable regulation. Would you care to clarify just what types of firearms should or should not be regulated in your opinion?
Since you asked, Micah
And bear in mind that my opinions were formed because I am on of those people who was interested in firearms before 1968.
In general, I accept the system as we now have it, instant background checks and all, mostly because there simply isn't any other choice. However, I still remember those days before passage of the GCA 68, when one could order a long gun or handgun, direct through the mail, with no background check, or other form of govt. approval needed, or involved. And personally, I don't see why we couldn't manage with the rules as we had them in those days. I don't see where we are any "safer" now than we were then. I believe that one should be allowed to own guns without special classifications because of their caliber or action type. And this include full auto firearms.
I also believe that misuse of those items should bring the law down on you like the hammer of the Gods. And for those that commit murder (meaning killing for personal profit or emotional satisfaction) should face the rope, the firing squad, or the gas chamber. And even guillotine is not too extreme in my view. And that it shouldn't take decades to have the sentence carried out.
I do believe that arms firing explosive projectiles, rockets, and bombs (again, explosives) should be held to tighter standards of examination than ordinary small arms. But that citizens with no legal prohibition (such as a criminal record) ought to be allowed to own such items, once such a condition is established.
In the last hundred or so years, we have changed from a society where evil doers were heavily and publically punished, with the rest of us basically free, to one where evil doers are less heavily punished and the rest of us heavily regulated. I would personally prefer things the way they were in my grandfather's day, as pertaining to gun ownership, when one could walk into the hardware store, put doen the cash and walk out with a Tommygun, a pistol, or dynamite, if that what you wanted and could afford.
But I know we aren't going back to those days, if for no other reason than both personal responsibility and permanent punishment seem to have gone out of style.
And bear in mind that my opinions were formed because I am on of those people who was interested in firearms before 1968.
In general, I accept the system as we now have it, instant background checks and all, mostly because there simply isn't any other choice. However, I still remember those days before passage of the GCA 68, when one could order a long gun or handgun, direct through the mail, with no background check, or other form of govt. approval needed, or involved. And personally, I don't see why we couldn't manage with the rules as we had them in those days. I don't see where we are any "safer" now than we were then. I believe that one should be allowed to own guns without special classifications because of their caliber or action type. And this include full auto firearms.
I also believe that misuse of those items should bring the law down on you like the hammer of the Gods. And for those that commit murder (meaning killing for personal profit or emotional satisfaction) should face the rope, the firing squad, or the gas chamber. And even guillotine is not too extreme in my view. And that it shouldn't take decades to have the sentence carried out.
I do believe that arms firing explosive projectiles, rockets, and bombs (again, explosives) should be held to tighter standards of examination than ordinary small arms. But that citizens with no legal prohibition (such as a criminal record) ought to be allowed to own such items, once such a condition is established.
In the last hundred or so years, we have changed from a society where evil doers were heavily and publically punished, with the rest of us basically free, to one where evil doers are less heavily punished and the rest of us heavily regulated. I would personally prefer things the way they were in my grandfather's day, as pertaining to gun ownership, when one could walk into the hardware store, put doen the cash and walk out with a Tommygun, a pistol, or dynamite, if that what you wanted and could afford.
But I know we aren't going back to those days, if for no other reason than both personal responsibility and permanent punishment seem to have gone out of style.
ImprobableJoe
Moderator
I'm all for an "Assault Weapons Ban"... for a certain definition of "assault weapon" that is mostly already covered by existing law, and doesn't actually need a separate ban. I'm a Democrat, always have been... and I remember screaming at the TV a few times during various Congressional discussions. For the love of ^%$&, can't the politicians find a single person who actually knows what an "assault weapon" is?!?!
It is like when I was watching Time Warp last night, and they referred to 5.56 M4 carbine as a "Machine Gun"... really? You couldn't do any research? None?
It is like when I was watching Time Warp last night, and they referred to 5.56 M4 carbine as a "Machine Gun"... really? You couldn't do any research? None?