Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.

Clearly we should be allowed the weapons of the average infantryman.
Click to expand...
Denali, no offense but are you aware of the arms available to the average infantryman in the US Army? Do you think the 2nd Amendment allows us to carry those weapons?
 
GoSlash, what is your basis for asserting that Gura's statements result from inadvertance rather than plan?
Click to expand...
The statement was clearly calculated. The undermining of his own position was clearly not unless you're arguing that he was intentionally trying to torpedo his own case.

Do you think the 2nd Amendment allows us to carry those weapons?
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely positively no doubt about it. Look at the wording, the intent, and the precedent. The whole point of placing the second in the BoR in the first place was as a hedge against tyranny from the Federal government. The whole point of having a militia is so that it can conduct infantry operations. For that you need infantry weapons.

Yes. The 2nd clearly anticipates the general population keeping and bearing infantry weapons.
I think that your position isn't so much one of interpretation as one of practicality. *Should* we allow civillians to own infantry weapons?
If you feel that we shouldn't then the correct recourse is to look at amendment, not crossing your eyes and reading out what is clearly there.
 
Weapons used by the military particularly automatic ones are not suitable for civilian personal self defense
Click to expand...

Not suitable for civilian personal defense, perhaps, but VERY suitable for a militia composed of citizen soldiers.

We don't have one, and don't seem to need one, at this point in history, but our 2nd amendment was written to guarantee that IF the need ever arises, we have a civilian population which is armed. We don't know that the Chinese will never invade. There are 5 of them for every one of us, you know. We don't know that the real primary danger forseen by the founders, tyranny from our own government, will never require a revolution. Unless we can know those things for certain, we should not discard the original intent of the 2nd amendment: a country where freedom rests in, and is defended by, the hands of the citizens themselves.

If you're going to say that these are not militia-appropriate weapons, why did we give heat seeking shoulder fired missiles to the glorious mujahudeen Afghan freedom fighters militia (before they became reviled Taliban terrorists)? If you're going to say that no militia can hold off a modern army, please explain why we are still in Iraq years after they got a constitution and a new government. Our government claims a few foreign interlopers are responsible, and it's not a civil war. They're using crude bombs. And yet, they're keeping the world's only superpower pretty busy, are they not?
 
They clearly intended us to have the countermeasure's to deal with a rogue government, not just hunt and protect ourselves from random crime. Clearly we should be allowed the weapons of the average infantryman.
Click to expand...

I agree regarding the original intent of the Second Amendment. While I would like the whole enchilada, the Second Amendment has effectively been a dead letter for decades and I would welcome it being revived, even if only to Constitutionally guarantee firearms for self defense. At least that would give us something to build upon.

Denali, no offense but are you aware of the arms available to the average infantryman in the US Army? Do you think the 2nd Amendment allows us to carry those weapons?
Click to expand...

Based on a strict-constructionist reading of the Second Amendment, YES, and not just the weapons the average infantryman can carry, but much more.
 
Yes, absolutely positively no doubt about it. Look at the wording, the intent, and the precedent. The whole point of placing the second in the BoR in the first place was as a hedge against tyranny from the Federal government. The whole point of having a militia is so that it can conduct infantry operations. For that you need infantry weapons.
Click to expand...

So you really believe that civilians right now should be able to buy stingers, AT-4s, M203 grenade launchers, Mortars, and land mines with no restriction and that is what the second amendment says? All of these are infantry weapons and there is more!
 
Publius,

Not arguing the effectiveness of a militia. Particularly one that operates on its own turf. We just don't have one and when the Chinese hit the beach I am sure Joe Sixpack will get his stinger too after the National Guard is overwhelmed and the Constitution probably won't mean beans but that is not where we are now. The question is where do we draw the line now. I think Gura did it well.
 
Obviously the nature of warfare has changed a bit since 1790. Should civilians be allowed to have the same weaponry legally that is possessed by our military in every sense as long as they can afford it?
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm not sure I want Donald Trump with the ability to buy a column of Abrams. :p
 
Where would we draw the line and why?
Click to expand...
I believe the intent is the security of a free State, and a free State has a popular government. If an individual had weapons of mass destruction, I think that would be a threat to popular government in his State, a threat to other States, and a threat to the Union. At the other extreme, if the people were disarmed, I think that would also threaten popular government, the States, and the Union. And so I think either extreme would be a federal affair. However, when it comes to something like automatic weapons, I don't see the same kind of threat, and so I don't see how it is a federal issue ... the feds might say that automatic weapons are militia weapons and thus federally protected, but I don't see that happening .... it seems as though what we are left with is a crime issue, a police issue, and an intrastate matter. Doesn't the Constitution leave such things to each State?
 
I'd say safe storage restrictions for such items would be perfectly reasonable, but yes, I'm saying infantry weapons were the primary intent of the 2A. And that includes the cannons at Lexington and Concord. ;)

(Now, where and when you could actually fire such weapons would be a subject for further regulation, but you only asked about owning them, not using them.)
 
I see where this is going, and yeah I know just what is available. By the way, the question was not aimed at Gura.
If you're really as uncomfortable with the 2nd as you come across, just say so. It would be insightful of you though to understand that your government is not to be trusted, and that you are taking a position that your founding fathers fought against and prevailed.
I understand though that your electricity works, you enjoy a certain sense of wealth, and your families are relatively safe. Yeah you're right, what the hell possessed me? Time to go catch some cable.
 
Yeah I'm not sure I want Donald Trump with the ability to buy a column of Abrams.
Click to expand...

Hell, think about what Warren Buffet could get? F-22s:eek:

Hugh, I think we are getting somewhere.

Publius, this is where I am going. Firearms that really deal with the threat we face which is crime. I know if you had an AT-4 YOU would fire it some damn where.;)
 
The question is where do we draw the line now. I think Gura did it well.
Click to expand...

There are two issues in your comment. I think I've made my understanding of the 2A pretty clear, but I also understand that my interpretation would not fly in court. I think my originalist interpretation is both accurate and a good idea, but even many of those who will concede that it's accurate don't think it's a good idea.

As for what Gura said in court and in interviews, my only concern is that it MAY help to foreclose any possibility of furthering a more originalist interpretation of the 2A, but that is really not up to Gura. It's up to the Court now.
 
I think I've made my understanding of the 2A pretty clear, but I also understand that my interpretation would not fly in court. I think my originalist interpretation is both accurate and a good idea, but even many of those who will concede that it's accurate don't think it's a good idea.
Click to expand...

If it won't fly in court then it is a dead letter right? Why criticize Gura for doing something the court WILL accept and getting us a key win?
 
So you really believe that civilians right now should be able to buy stingers, AT-4s, M203 grenade launchers, Mortars, and land mines with no restriction and that is what the second amendment says? All of these are infantry weapons and there is more!
Click to expand...

The cost, even to the gubmint, of these weapons systems is staggering. Add to that the Destructive Device tax stamp per round of ammunition or "land mine" or "rocket" and you've got a very hefty price tag.

Now... to a border drug smuggling cartel, this might not be an issue. But they would probably have other felony or discounting elements to them that prohibit them from purchasing any weapons. They buy their weapons from the global black market... if they want grenades et cetera, they buy them from corrupt soldiers or arms dealers, not US gunstores.

"Land mines" are relatively indiscriminate. They have no definite target nor definite explosion time, and therefore cannot be employed safely by an otherwise civilian population. They also have to be defused to be collected. There is no "practice" that is a safe drill to regulate the militia. An M203, on the other hand, has a deliberate target and explodes on impact. I would guess that M203 explosive rounds cost around $500-$1000 each. Add to that the NFA tax stamp for each round and the launcher, and I am pretty certain I am going to shoot one, once, in a rock quarry or similar isolated environment and then save one for "just in case" under heavy lock and key. Practice with chalk rounds and the like.
 
If it won't fly in court then it is a dead letter right? Why criticize Gura for doing something the court WILL accept and getting us a key win?
Click to expand...

I haven't exactly called for him to be tarred and feathered over the issue. ;)

I would point out that he could have done what SG Clement did in his oral argument:
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that opinion also, it didn't use the militia prologue to say it's only the kind of weapons that would be useful in militia, and that are commonly -- commonly held today. Is there any Federal exclusion of weapons that applies to weapons that are commonly held today? I don't know what you're worried about. Machine guns, what else? Armored bullets, what else?

GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult -- I don't want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day -- but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is.
Click to expand...

In a similar fashion, Gura could have made some offhand comment that our side does not want to foreclose the possibility that, if such an argument ever came up, we might want to argue that the standard issue weapon of the NG is actually a militia-appropriate weapon. THEN he could have gone on and pandered to the modern interpretation that the second amendment is all about hunting and concealed weapons permits, and has nothing to do with the fact that we might one day need citizen-soldiers.
 
This is a landmark case to overturn an unconstitutional gun ban in one city in the U.S. If ruled that firearms ownership is an individual right to be protected by the constitution that sets a legal precedent for other areas with outright bans to have them over turned.

This is not a case to do away with NFA laws and the 86 machine gun ban. There is a very broad relationship but the court is trying to rule based on this specific case, not set wide parameters to what types of firearms, we as individuals, can own under the "well regulated militia" phrase of the 2A.

Those issues will likely follow, I caution everyone in trying to get the whole farm at once, a victory here will lead to some more very good discussion regarding firearms ownership. Trying to go for everything in one fatal swoop will likely sway those on the fence the other way.

Let's work on fixing the biggest wrongs first. Not being permitted to possess a weapon in your home in a condition that is ready to be shot is a huge deal that potentially impacts every American. Having to get a tax stamp to buy a 20+ year old machine gun is of a much lower priority to a lot of gun owners. We may think it's wrong but overall gun bans are having the most negative impact on law abiding citizens at this moment.

Personally I'd like to see discussion on the constitutionality of being required to purchase a license to carry a handgun. Discussion about preventing the ammo bans like in California is also a pretty high priority because if it spread the guns that the Constitution protects would be rendered almost useless if our ammo costs 5.00 per 9mm round to shoot.

So if we can determine it's an individual's right to bear arms to protect themselves IN and OUT of the home without licensing (conceal or open carry) then we can start picking away at mag capacity laws, the 86 ban, and others if it continues to be an issue. Let's prioritize a little bit here.

I do understand the concern about just shucking off regulating a "class" of firearms...but saying the machine gun ban will lead to handgun bans is a pretty slippery slope. Not saying it couldn't happen but it's a stretch to say it would happen.

The next 10 to 20 years are going to be very interesting for "this thing of ours".
 
Well said S40B, you do understand then our angst at the apparent open invitation to regulate? This thing is chess not checkers and I for one would have had him use other language.
On the other topic, as far as I can tell, only one legally owned automatic weapon has been used in a crime and that by a cop. Those posting here who are terrified of their neighbors having access to such infernal weaponry take heart, only criminals are using them now!:eek:
 
I think that some of us are missing the point IMHO. I believe that we as individuals should be allowed ANYthing that our heart desires without any necessity to articulate a need for the item. Even the newest super stealth whatever.

Like everyone in the military we should be held accountable for misuse of our items or actions. We should not be restricted for what we might do.
 
TN Gent,
So you really believe that civilians right now should be able to buy stingers, AT-4s, M203 grenade launchers, Mortars, and land mines with no restriction and that is what the second amendment says? All of these are infantry weapons and there is more!
Click to expand...

I was really hoping you'd ask me this question, because it's evident that I have failed to get the salient point across.

It doesn't matter what *I* believe civillians "should" have. It doesn't matter what *you* believe civillians "should" have. Ultimately it doesn't even matter what the Justices themselves think civillians "should" have.

What matters is the letter and intent of the law. The question is "What did the folks who wrote and ratified that think we should have?"

Because the 2nd doesn't mean what you or I want it to, but what *they* wanted it to.

So if you're up for poring over the personal writings, state Constitutions, Federalist/ antifederalist discussions, and the draft proposals I encourage you to go ahead and do so. It will lead you to the inescapable conclusion that they fully intended us to be armed with infantry weapons.

It's the United States Army that was supposed to be disarmed. Heck... it wasn't even supposed to exist without a declaration of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top