Full Auto Should Be Legal...?

[nate45]

The dangers of result oriented jurisprudence-

Many courts have decided first what result they want, then tortured law, language and reason to make that result happen. This is not just a problem in constitutional law; it makes a hash of the law of many states as well.

I have a huge problem with this, whether the results obtained are to my liking or not.

There is a process for changing the constitution and convoluted reasoning is not it.

My view is that since the unconstitutional policies of FDR were rammed through by the leftist court, this problem has gotten progressively worse. It has also be practiced by those on the right.

They seek to implement a political agenda and then go about twisting logic and the intended meaning of the constitution to do it.

The whole notion that the court is, or is to be apolitical has become a farce.

 

[Wildalaska]

Even if you've never practiced, you are unlikely to believe that the inferior reasoning employed in result oriented jurisprudence improves or clarifies the law. It is pernicious to the degree that false rationales are subsequently incorporated into the body of case law.

I have practiced. Have you?

Result oriented jurisprudence is essential to proper interpretation of result oriented law, ie...all law. Law is written to obtain a result. Hence result oriented jurisprudence (interpretation of the law to achieve the result set forth in the law) does not necessarily entail false rationales, or inferior reasoning. Look at 4th Amendment issues for the best result of that

Perhaps you are confusing some concepts here. Would you be referring to what is commonly known as "legislation from the bench", which does entail the problems you set forth

WildalwayswillingtohelpfolksunderstandAlaska TM

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Konrad,

As you see, reasonable people can disagree on the isssue of gun rights. Of course, this being a firearms forum you will probably find more people posting here who would agree with, for lack of a better term, "Any Gun, Anyone, Anywhere." I believe strongly in individual freedom, the Second Amendment and am a gun owner but still believe that it is reasonable and at times beneficial to restrict possession and ownership of guns.

However, that being said there is a better way to remedy the full auto question. Organize politically and repeal the 1934 NFA, the Hughes Amendment from the 1986 FOPA and the 1968 GCA. Then start with other laws you don't like that regulate guns and repeal them too. The courts did not make those laws, the legislatures did. Rather than try and thwart them through the courts, vote them away!

You see, the real bulwark against tyranny is the vote. Get involved, organize and overcome. In my county here in TN, the County Commission wished to restrict our right to carry CCW in the county buildings. We organized and defeated the measure. No lawyers or courts needed! Cheaper too!

 

[zukiphile]

I have practiced. Have you?

Yes. I still do.

Result oriented jurisprudence is essential to proper interpretation of result oriented law, ie...all law. Law is written to obtain a result. Hence result oriented jurisprudence (interpretation of the law to achieve the result set forth in the law) does not necessarily entail false rationales, or inferior reasoning. Look at 4th Amendment issues for the best result of that

That is incorrect. Your misuse of the term suggests that you are unfamiliar with it, though I would have hoped my original explanation would have resolved any genuine confusion. I assure you that I didn't coin the term. See below.

http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ODYxYTI5MjEyZDE5NzA2ZTUzZjc4M2U1YzQxZDY4ZmI=

If you regard with enthusiasm jurisprudence that determines a result first and only then seeks a justification for the result, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea difficult to understand.

Perhaps you are confusing some concepts here. Would you be referring to what is commonly known as "legislation from the bench", which does entail the problems you set forth[?]

No. "Legislation from the bench" is a distinguishable concept. If a google search leaves either unclear, feel free to request clarification.

I understand that you are a fixture here and may be given a wide birth. That's fine, but it doesn't make incivility more appropriate.

 

[dr.j]

I'm almost 100% sure that none of the people who wrote the second amendment ever had the pleasure of seeing a FA weapon. They would then have formed no opinion of them. Since the second amendment was written before these weapons existed, doesn't it seem sort of illogical to apply it to FA guns. Who can be sure that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted them included in the second amendment. If weapons like that existed at the time that the bill of rights was written, who knows what might have been different. Anybody who thinks that they can accurately get inside of some dead guys' heads and figure out what they would have wanted need to get their ego in check. The founding fathers of our nation trusted us to make changes and modifications to our rights depending on what was needed to make society function. The laws discouraging the ownership of FA weapons were passed in the 1930s to help stop violence associated with prohibition because that is what we thought was needed to make the country safe again.

I'm not trying to use my argument to justify outlawing these weapons, I'm only trying to say that sometimes it can be very complicated trying to apply modern situations to 200 year old documents. The best thing that we as present citizens can do is think for ourselves. We were given the power as a community to change laws and make the world better by adapting to new environments. I guess all I'm trying to say is that none of the laws we have are set in stone, and they sometimes need to be reworked to make sense in current times. Sir Newton's laws of physics made perfect sense 200 years ago. Now we know that they are not true (well those of us who payed attention in school know). If we had continued to apply old science to new situations we would not have been able to progress past our own legacy. We have been given the right by our forefathers to think for ourselves. We need to use modern arguments (there are plenty of good ones) to justify the ownership of FA weapons or we'll all look like ignorant kooks.

FA weapons are a tricky beast. I would be hard pressed to be able to justify my need for one. I honestly can't think of any situation in which I would need a full auto weapon, ever. One well placed bullet is better than missing 20 times. But if somebody really really wants one they should be able to have one as long as they know what they are doing with it. I do think it sucks that our government won't make something illegal outright, they just make it so inconvenient and expensive that most people don't exercise the right that they have.

 

[Wildalaska]

That is incorrect. Your misuse of the term suggests that you are unfamiliar with it, though I would have hoped my original explanation would have resolved any genuine confusion. I assure you that I didn't coin the term. See below.

Result oriented jurisprudence is not necessarily a term of art, unless you of course ascribe to "it means what ever the pundit says theory"...sort of like explaining the Bush doctrine?

If you regard with enthusiasm jurisprudence that determines a result first and only then seeks a justification for the result, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea difficult to understand.

If you regard with distaste jurisprudence that fails to determine a result first and only then seeks a correction for the result based on expediency, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea confusing for folks.

I understand that you are a fixture here and may be given a wide birth. That's fine, but it doesn't make incivility more appropriate.

Seens like you are the one indulging in ad hominems

WildpizzatimeAlaska ™

 

[zukiphile]

Result oriented jurisprudence is not necessarily a term of art, unless you of course ascribe to "it means what ever the pundit says theory"...

Or unless you are aware of that critique of defective jurisprudence.

If you regard with distaste jurisprudence that fails to determine a result first and only then seeks a correction for the result based on expediency, that is your right, but it shouldn't make the idea confusing for folks.

Expediency is the antithesis of principle and law. A law that commands us to do what is expedient is no law whatsoever. A jurisprudence that does whatever it prefers, but offers a tortured or implausible rationale, misuses the law and its own authority.

Seens like you are the one indulging in ad hominems

At no time have I attacked you personally for the purpose of undermining your argument, i.e. engaged in an ad hominem argument. My observation of your incivility arose from your misuse of a common term amongst attorneys discussing the judiciary. If your confusion was genuine, kindly accept my apology.

 

[Wildalaska]

My observation of your incivility arose from your misuse of a common term amongst attorneys discussing the judiciary.

LOL....Reminds me of my favorite barb, "Your Honour, my opponent is eloquent, but has no idea what we are talking about".

Don't confuse the issue with legalistic doublespeak, I gave up that game when I rejoined the real world...I say again...all law is result oriented, or it is not law at all

WildandsowedigressevenfurtherAlaska ™

 

[KChen986]

I always thought the 'Collateral Damage Justification' sufficed to restrict full auto weapons.

Weighing things in terms of pure utility, you have on one hand, the unfettered access to use and enjoyment of fully automatic weapons.

On the other hand, my concern lays with the uncontrollability of fully automatic weapons. Consider, drive by shootings and school shootings, done not with semi autos, but with fully automatic weapons.

To me, I think the collateral damage that may arise from FA weapons justifies their rarity.

Furthermore, the cost of FA weapons, upwards of $15,000 acts as a secondary barrier to criminal acquisition. Considering that (generally) criminals tend to be lower in Socio-economic status ("SES"), buying an auto weapon would cost their whole salary (unless...you're from/near mexican drug runners, heh). In short, those who can afford a FA weapon are most likely well off and by virtue of their SES are less likely to use such weapons for a crime.

There's always the slippery slope argument to counter my above comments. Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?

Good point. Sometimes it is tough to draw lines. The slippery slope argument is not a bad argument when you begin to consider that some might say: "I have not only a right to full auto but the entire spectrum of military arms and weapons available to our armed forces".

That is the slippery slope in reverse. Once we unrestrict and thus lower the prices for a M240 Squad Automatic Weapon why not a grenade or rocket launcher as well?

In my simple noodle the line seems to fall best at the full auto line. Why? I guess because the full auto operation seems to have been developed exclusively for military application and does not appear suitable for civilian SD or hunting where issues like collateral damage are more important than a free fire zone in wartime.

 

[dlb435]

The NFA (national firearms act-1934) was passed after public outrage at any number of machine gun related crimes. Before 1934 if you wanted a machine gun, you just bought it. Turns out that not many people wanted one. It wasn't any good for hunting (except maybe vermin), it wasn't much good for home defense and few people owned one just to play.
Criminals loved them. Lots of fire power, terror and they didn't care who else got hit.
The NFA did not ban machine guns, it only requires that you paid a tax.
Pres. Bush (1986, by edict), banned the production of new machine guns for private use.
The Supreme Court has refused to enter the debate. Why? Because any restriction of access to firearms by the Federal Gov. is prohibited by the second ammendment. As long as they don't have to rule, the law stands.
So what we have is a situation were the laws are cleary unconstitutional, but nobody wants to rock the boat.
So, what do you want? The status quo with basically illegal laws or gangs able to buy AK-47's at any harware store?
It's a tough choice either way.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Interesting thread, I'll play.

My take is from studying research on the views of weapons type. There is fair evidence that many folks have unpleasant ideation primed by EBRs, military derviative guns, assault weapons that have a certain appearance - independent of their semi vs full auto configuration.

The argument is why one would need one and wouldn't only nuts want such a weapon. Rational arguments can be made for buying such guns as a law abiding citizen. I happily own some. However, the ease of buying the inexpensive EBRs of the soviet Patterns has filtered down to them being bought by gangs and used in a small but visible number of crimes or high profile rampages. That's what the average, nongun person who doesn't reach the issue sees.

If you wanted to sell full autos - one way to avoid those vivid instances of misuse is a price or qualification barrier to ownership. The current system has a price barrier of fees, the price of available guns and local authorities not authorizing sales - even if legal in your state.

If we dropped those barriers so that full auto AK- oids became cheaply available with only current NICS - there eventually would be drift into some high profile crime (just like Capone days) and that might cause a backlash down the firepower food chain to take out many semis. Folks don't like hicap mags for Glocks - why do you need such? So imagine the problems with some full auto rampages or gang incidents on the news?

While one can say the ban is illegal if you go for absolutist position - I don't see how you can make a personal protection utility argument that would really be convincing. You might make the insurrection argument but I know from past research that while many folks not in the choir will accept the personal protection argument - they don't buy the insurrection argument.

The best one could hope for IMO, is perhaps the current system in place with new manufacture allowed to be purchased with sufficient price walls to avoid cheap guns going into crime.

I don't think abstract arguments about the meaning of infringement or insurrection will have any sway in a legislative debate in the forseeable future with either party in control.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Glenn,

My bias against the unrestricted availability of military arms to civilians comes from my former life as a career Army Officer. I fear some of these weapons in law-abiding hands as much if not more than in the hands of criminals. Using them safely (not endengering innocents) in civilian SD situations would I fear be very problematic. Some will argue that but IMO there are some weapons too dangerous for the untrained unaccountable ordinary joe to possess.

I don't think abstract arguments about the meaning of infringement or insurrection will have any sway in a legislative debate in the forseeable future with either party in control.

This I agree with particularly the insurrection piece. Talking to the non-gun owning public about armed civilians revolting against the government stirs up fear and visions of kooks with very deadly weapons who are far more dangerous to the public than an imagined tryannical government.

The best one could hope for IMO, is perhaps the current system in place with new manufacture allowed to be purchased with sufficient price walls to avoid cheap guns going into crime.

Actually, the barrier to crime would be the NFA registration as the prices would plummet if newly made FA could be purchased. I don't think price that legal FA today command keeps them out of criminals hands anyway since they wouldn't get them through that avenue, but having many more available to civilians legally might create more opportunity to fall into the wrong hands.

 

[ComradeBurg]

Just where is the line drawn? We draw it at fully auto right now--but what about 30 round magazines? Will that increase collateral damage?

This is part of the reason I don't think there should be a line when dealing with firearms. Anytime you establish a line or an exception to something you open the door to advancing the line and creating further exceptions.

You make a good statement with the 30 round magazines and collateral damage. The line is at automatic weapons and for a while was at large capacity magazines (and could return to that). After that do we do like Britain and decide all handguns should be banned because they are used in crimes and are portable enough anybody can have one? What about semi-automatic guns, they can unleash a torrent of lead pretty effectively. Once you open Pandora's box it's not easy to control nor close it.

We established heavy laws on automatic guns because of criminals. This is usually the reason for restricting things. What did it accomplish? Well the criminals just get their automatic weapons through illegal means. Gangs still have access to fully automatic weapons just as they did in the time the National Firearms Act was passed. It seems the act failed to accomplish it's intended goal. Making something illegal or exorbitantly expensive doesn't stop people from obtaining it, it just creates a black market. Barriers to entry only affect people who are willing to play by the rules.

The Supreme Court disagrees

Being I was stating my belief and not the law I don't see how the supreme courts' ruling have any bearing.

 

[Wildalaska]

Being I was stating my belief and not the law I don't see how the supreme courts' ruling have any bearing.

It's a reality check

WildsetsusapartfromthosewhodontliveinrealityAlaska TM

 

[dlb435]

I think you miss the point of the NFA. I't was not to prevent you from getting a fully automatic weapon. It was to send you to jail if you have one. The NFA was aimed at orginized crime. In most cases, it has worked. There are some few unfortunate civilians that have gone to jail because of this act, but that was not the intention.
My foolish uncle built a fully automatic weapon, got drunk and blasted away in his front yard. He ended up doing two years for that. Was he a threat? Well, mostly to himself. Did he deserve two years in jail? I'm not sure, but shooting a gun drunk should give you some jail time, full auto or not.
To the main point of the post: The second ammendment is there to prevent any government from becoming so powerfull that the people can not over through it. Thus, fully automatic weapons should be allowed.
At the same time, the people MOST likely to abuse fully automatic weapons are the criminal element. We need to curtail that.
Thus, we have a dilemma. On the one hand we can allow easy access to fully automatic weapons and live with the carnage from the criminal elements or we can restrict access and suffer a potential dictator in the future. This is not an easy choice. I would favor easier access than we have now, but not so easy as to allow any idiot with $1000.00 to get an M-16.
What do you think?

 

[Crosshair]

To me, I think the collateral damage that may arise from FA weapons justifies their rarity.

I am liable for the rounds I fire.

If I shoot an intruder with a SA rifle and the bullet goes through him through my wall, and into my neighbors house. Nobody is going to make TOO big a a deal of it. I'll probably have to cover the cost of repairs.

If I shoot an intruder with a SA and the bullet goes through him through my wall, and into my neighbors leg inside his house. People aren't going to be too happy, but will realize that there was no way for me to predict that that would happen. I'll probably have to cover the medical bills.

If I shoot an intruder with a FA rifle, empty the mag and have 30 bullets go into my neighbors house. People are not going to be too happy. That would be grounds for reckless endangerment.

Darwin will clean the gene pool very quickly.

Since the second amendment was written before these weapons existed, doesn't it seem sort of illogical to apply it to FA guns.

The 1st amendment was written when only the quill pen and manual printing press were available. Are modern high speed printing presses not covered by the 1st amendment? What about the internet?

The Bill of Rights is an All-or-Nothing deal. Yes there are reasonable restrictions. however, like the common yelling "FIRE" in a theater example. It only allows for restricting activities that pose an immediate danger to others. yelling "FIRE" in a theater poses immediate danger to others. Yelling "FIRE" while in a park does not. Owning a rocket launcher does not by itself pose an immediate danger to others, thus does not pass scrutiny of "reasonable restrictions".

We could use the red herring of, "What about Nukes", but it's a non issue.

1. They are expensive. Anyone that could afford one wouldn't want one and anyone that would want one can't afford one.
2. Who is going to sell you one? (That would be one way of getting rid of Iran's nukes.)
3. There is nowhere you can safely use it. No matter what you do you are going to somehow be causing direct harm to someone else,meaning you're gonna get sued 8 ways past Sunday. At least with a TOW missile or an RPG I can go out to the middle of nowhere and blow up old cars without hurting anyone.

 

[Wildalaska]

If I shoot an intruder with a FA rifle, empty the mag and have 30 bullets go into my neighbors house. People are not going to be too happy. That would be grounds for reckless endangerment.

Darwin will clean the gene pool very quickly.

Clean up who? the poor innocent schnook killed by some rambo with a subgun?

I would submit that reasonable restrictions in a civilized society include FA restrictions. They are far more dangerous in the hands of the unqualified, crriminal or incompetant than simple long guns or hand guns, and that reason alone renders the NFA constitutional in 2nd Am terms.

WildlikehowitzersAlaska TM

 

[MrNiceGuy]

I'm almost 100% sure that none of the people who wrote the second amendment ever had the pleasure of seeing a FA weapon. They would then have formed no opinion of them. Since the second amendment was written before these weapons existed, doesn't it seem sort of illogical to apply it to FA guns. Who can be sure that Thomas Jefferson would have wanted them included in the second amendment. If weapons like that existed at the time that the bill of rights was written, who knows what might have been different. Anybody who thinks that they can accurately get inside of some dead guys' heads and figure out what they would have wanted need to get their ego in check. The founding fathers of our nation trusted us to make changes and modifications to our rights depending on what was needed to make society function.

It's not a matter of channeling a dead person, it's a matter of learning from history.


http://www.fff.org/freedom/0694e.asp

"""------------The early British colonists, imbued with the English distrust for standing military establishments as a threat to civil liberties, incorporated the tradition of the citizen-soldier. In 1636, the first militia unit, the North Regiment of Boston, was formed, followed two years later by the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company, the oldest American military unit in existence.

One of the first acts of Parliament following the accession of William and Mary to the throne of England as a result of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 was to restore the old constitution with its provision that every man may arm for self-defense.

In 1760, Britain began adopting mercantilist policies toward her American colonies. By 1768, these had produced such hardships and a reversal of the previous prosperity that British troops had to be sent to suppress riots and collect taxes.

Between 1768-1777, the British policy was to disarm the American colonists by whatever means possible, from entrapment, false promises of safekeeping, banning imports, seizure, and eventually shooting persons bearing arms.

By 1774, the British had embargoed shipments of arms to America, and the Americans responded by arming themselves and forming independent militia companies."""

It's pretty obvious that the reason for the amendment was to guarantee the people the ability to fight tyranny.

The laws discouraging the ownership of FA weapons were passed in the 1930s to help stop violence associated with prohibition because that is what we thought was needed to make the country safe again.

Exactly. It was one unjust law put in place to make it easier to enforce another unjust law. The ratchet effect on our rights is all too real.
It's sad when someone uses the result of an unjust law to justify another unjust law to enforce the first one... but thus is our legal system.

 

[SwampYankee]

In response to:

I think that they should be legal, as they are. It isn't that hard to file the proper paperwork for these, and as long as you are a law abiding citizen you can own them with a special tax stamp.

In my state, Rhode Island, all class III devices are illegal for civilian ownership. We cannot have automatic weapons, silencers or short barreled weapons.

While my rights are certainly infringed, there is little I can do about it...