Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.

[publius42]

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? Where would we draw the line and why? I know we use as civilians some of the same weapons but how do we advocate gun ownership and refute the "you are extremists who want to carry grenade launchers around"

It has changed, but even in 1790, a cannon was a pretty destructive thing, with few peaceful, civilian applications. Do you think it was reasonable for the (British) government to try to take the cannons at Lexington and Concord from the local militias?

Back then, a warship was the most powerful weapons system of the day, and President James Madison didn't seem to have a problem with civilians possessing them. He even hired them.

 

[GoSlash27]

To expand on Publius' post above...

It wasn't until very recently that the view on private ownership of military weapons was restricted.
There was a day not too long ago when one could purchase M2 Browning machine guns, mortars, 20mm antitank cannons, and field artillery pieces straight out of a magazine and have them shipped right to your door.

We did not have a problem with people shooting up college campuses. There was no bloodbath such as the gun control types predict.

So what has changed so radically about "we the people" that we suddenly can't handle a Maremont?

 

[BillCA]

First off, let me say that it appears that the court is comfortable with the individual rights view of the 2nd Amendment. I do not expect the court to rule that you have to possess a militia ID card to own guns or that you need to show that a particular gun is somehow useful as a militia arm.

One key comment I picked up was from Chief Justice Roberets. He asked the SG (Clement) why the court should be constrained by any form of scrutiny. He didn't see a need to create a new level - Intermediate scrutiny - but he also seemed to be asking why the court could not do something entirely different in this case.

Remember, this is a unique case. It's essentially the first time a modern court is deciding a Bill of Rights question with almost no precedent to follow. Might the justices draw heavily on Blackstone and the English Bill for guidance? Or might they take a broader view and include what is permissible to use for public policy when legislating restrictions? I don't know where Roberts was going, but I'm sure HE does.

Gura's weak arguments trying to distance his case from machine guns does strike me as troublesome. However, as others have said, pushing that aspect could have alienated any potential "swing" vote in our favor.

Gura was correct, however, with regards to licensing of a handgun...at least to this extent. If D.C. permitted licensing of handguns today, it is likely that it would be considered "reasonable" under the current legal landscape and no case would have been brought to SCOTUS. It would be a much less offensive restriction than an outright ban.

As to the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and what it should permit citizens to own, that's a bigger question. On one hand, I'm of the group that says if a solider can carry it into the field himself, aim it at opposing troops and it does not have an explosive warhead, it's suitable for citizens to own. That includes a .17 M2 snubby revolver up to a .50 BMG M2 Machinegun.

On the other hand, I'm not against the concept of people owning an 81mm mortar or 155mm howitzer as long as there are some strict rules about storage of any explosive ammunition and unlawful uses. And I think this is prudent. As pointed out elsewhere, early colonial laws limited the storage of gunpowder to outbuildings away from populated areas to prevent tragic accidents.

 

[jkkimberfan]

New Jersey

The Supreme Court can rule whatever they want. The liberals who run New Jersey (Corzine, Lautenberg, Rothman, Menendez, etc. :barf will still do whatever they feel like. The Supreme Court could rule that any American can walk around with a grenade launcher, but in New Jersey you still will not be able to carry a two shot derranger outside your house. In New Jersey, the liberals rule the land and almost everything is included in their New Jersey State "Assault Weapon" Ban. Supreme Court or not.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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.

Not really, your pals here would do away with the NFA so no tax! These items are cheaper than you know. As a retired officer I was able to purchase a SIG for far less than what a civilian pays.

"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. 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.

All these are items the Infantry carries today. And remember no taxes! That is an infringment on our right to bear arms! Are you modifying what you think civilians should carry now? Be careful! Next, they'll want your pocket knife!

It wasn't until very recently that the view on private ownership of military weapons was restricted.
There was a day not too long ago when one could purchase M2 Browning machine guns, mortars, 20mm antitank cannons, and field artillery pieces straight out of a magazine and have them shipped right to your door.
We did not have a problem with people shooting up college campuses. There was no bloodbath such as the gun control types predict.

We didn't have the types of nutjobs we have today. People stayed married and married before they had kids etc. The lethality of weapons changed and we changed in our culture.

Back then, a warship was the most powerful weapons system of the day, and President James Madison didn't seem to have a problem with civilians possessing them. He even hired them.

I think they called them pirates and they stole those ships from legit owners. Bad example I think comparing them to legal gun owners.

 

[DENALI]

And TG brings up another broad aspect of this case for me. The subject of the special people and their special rights and privlidges. I'm sick of hearing from cops who get deals on what I have to pay full pop on. It's BS! This whole issue is much bigger than just Heller vs Dc. We've been getting screwed for over 65 years by this liberal usurption of the 2nd, and their emphasis on the concept of LE will protect us. SCOTUS has ruled on this before, they're not obligated to protect anyone but they can pretty much have carte blanche with their VERSION of the 2nd!
I've had enough of this BS, it's either a right or it's not. This Gura brought this all home with his lame capitulation to regulation and reasonable restriction, God the arrogance of these people.

 

[publius42]

I think they called them pirates and they stole those ships from legit owners. Bad example I think comparing them to legal gun owners.

No, there was a difference between pirates and privateers, though the line did get blurry. Still, the Letter of Marque to which I linked did name the legit owners of the ship in question.

You didn't answer my question about Lexington and Concord yet. Was it reasonable or responsible for a civilian militia to own cannons? Was it reasonable for the government to try to seize those cannons?

 

[gc70]

I think they called them pirates and they stole those ships from legit owners. Bad example I think comparing them to legal gun owners.

Quite a negative view of a Constitutionally-approved action:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

Privateers were the mainstay of American naval forces during the Revolution.

Many privateers were owned by prominent Americans such as Robert Morris.

 

[azredhawk44]

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.

Not really, your pals here would do away with the NFA so no tax! These items are cheaper than you know. As a retired officer I was able to purchase a SIG for far less than what a civilian pays.



All these are items the Infantry carries today. And remember no taxes! That is an infringment on our right to bear arms! Are you modifying what you think "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. 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. civilians should carry now? Be careful! Next, they'll want your pocket knife!

The parallel here is not to 1934 or 1968 legislation... the parallel is to 922(0) and the 1986 new manufacture machine gun ban on civilian transfers.

Another thing about "land mines" is they are inherently illegal due to their status as booby traps. While a shotgun is legal and I can even use it to defend my home, I absolutely cannot rig a trap with my shotgun so that it shoots whoever climbs through a window. Land mines are the same.

I can own a smoothbore cannon nowadays. I see little difference between that and an M203, other than the inherent portability of the M203 and the absolute lack of regulation of a smoothbore cannon or mortar. I could strap half a dozen smoothbore cannon into the bed of my truck and fire them into the nearest school, airport or mall if I chose to, and the construction of those cannon would be completely legal and untraceable. And just as dangerous as an M203.

There's no law stopping me now.

It would certainly be more dangerous than an MP5 or M4.

And in regards to your SIG... how is that relevant at all? Other than "I'm one of the priviledged that gets state contract access to get benefits that you don't get?"

It has absolutely no bearing either for or against the citizen militia keeping and bearing arms, or the classes of arms to be borne by the citizen militia.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Another thing about "land mines" is they are inherently illegal due to their status as booby traps. While a shotgun is legal and I can even use it to defend my home, I absolutely cannot rig a trap with my shotgun so that it shoots whoever climbs through a window. Land mines are the same.

Your compatriots have said that they feel the 2nd amendment allows them to carry any and evrything the US Army Infantry does. They carry land mines and hand grenades. The mines CAN be command detonated and don't have to tripped. A smoothbore cannon? Wow! I had a spud gun once.

And in regards to your SIG... how is that relevant at all? Other than "I'm one of the priviledged that gets state contract access to get benefits that you don't get?"
It has absolutely no bearing either for or against the citizen militia keeping and bearing arms, or the classes of arms to be borne by the citizen militia.

No you said the weapons were expensive and I showed they were not.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Quite a negative view of a Constitutionally-approved action:

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water"

We did that because we had no Navy to speak of at that time. Relevance?

 

[gc70]

We did that because we had no Navy to speak of at that time. Relevance?

The relevance of A1.8.11 is that it speaks to the potential scope of the Second Amendment.

When the Constitution was written, the Founders had recently concluded a war in which the government had no Navy to speak of, but had a reasonably large naval force at their disposal in the form of privately-owned warships. A1.8.11 enshrines the government's ability to utilize privately-owned warships. If the Founders had a limited view (i.e. an infantryman's weapons) of arms in the Second Amendment, how would they find privately-owned warships to which they could grant Letters of Marque in the future?

 

[publius42]

A smoothbore cannon? Wow! I had a spud gun once.

I have a spud gun with a rifled barrel from spudtech.com, but none of that has anything to do with the interesting question about cannons. At least, it was interesting to me.... Still don't want to talk about Lexington and Concord?

 

[GoSlash27]

We didn't have the types of nutjobs we have today. People stayed married and married before they had kids etc.

Speaking as a "nutjob" who had a kid before marriage and did noy stay married, I reject the assertion that I can't be trusted with a howitzer. I already have the means at my disposal to go on a world-class killing spree and I haven't done so.

The lethality of weapons changed....

I would submit that it hasn't.

And all of this is an aside. Your opinion of what the people "should" or "shouldn't" be allowed is immaterial. The Constitution has already answered that question. If you don't like the answer, you need to work to amend it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Still don't want to talk about Lexington and Concord?

Sure, I have been answering a lot of posts and enjoying them. That one got lost in hte shuffle. Your question was:

Was it reasonable or responsible for a civilian militia to own cannons? Was it reasonable for the government to try to seize those cannons?

Who, the British? There was no US or a US Constitution when those battles happened. What is your point here?

Speaking as a "nutjob" who had a kid before marriage and did noy stay married, I reject the assertion that I can't be trusted with a howitzer. I already have the means at my disposal to go on a world-class killing spree and I haven't done so.

Sorry, bad typing. I am trying to rush too much and my sentences get mangled I did not mean to say that divorced people were nutjobs. My statement was that the barriers of good behavior and citizenship have deteriorated in the last several years and that things like school shootings didn't happen. Couple that with increased effective lethality of firearms from 1790,and that jump is significant, and that is why there wasn't attempts to regulate BARs and Thompsons from the bad guys until the 30's

And all of this is an aside. Your opinion of what the people "should" or "shouldn't" be allowed is immaterial. The Constitution has already answered that question. If you don't like the answer, you need to work to amend it.

Obviously that is not true since the NFA and the '86 bills are still in place and I see no public support to repeal them in the future. YOU say the Constitution gives us the right to own all the weapons carried by the US Army Infantry but yet the law says we can't and there has been no successfult court challenge to stop those laws. I say the burden is on you to show otherwise. I don't think the law backs you on that.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If the Founders had a limited view (i.e. an infantryman's weapons) of arms in the Second Amendment, how would they find privately-owned warships to which they could grant Letters of Marque in the future?

What is your point here? Do we grant Letters of Marque today? If not, why not? Maybe it is because things have CHANGED and we have a Navy? Just like we had no real standing professional Army in 1790. We were afraid of those and now we have a very large capable one. When we have a war now we don't call up untrained Joe Six Pack to off and fight the bad guys with his shotgun. Back then we did. The need for the orgnaized militia has been answered with the National Guard.

 

[publius42]

Who, the British? There was no US or a US Constitution when those battles happened. What is your point here?

My point is that a bunch of civilians, in defiance of the government, wanted to keep weapons which were clearly not suitable for civilian self defense, nor were they common among the populace. The government wanted to take away those weapons. My questions were whether it was reasonable for those civilians to own such military hardware, and whether it was reasonable for the government (which had a very capable standing army) to want to take the cannons away. Asking for my point is not an answer to those questions.

 

[gc70]

What is your point here? Do we grant Letters of Marque today?

The point is that you missed the point in post #52: "The relevance of A1.8.11 is that it speaks to the potential scope of the Second Amendment."

The Founders could have borrowed more concepts from the English Bill of Rights and written "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, suitable to the average infantryman, shall not be infringed." But they did not restrict the Second Amendment to common infantry weapons and A1.8.11 shows that they also expected citizens to even be able to own warships - the most complex weapons system of the day.

Just like we had no real standing professional Army in 1790. We were afraid of those and now we have a very large capable one. When we have a war now we don't call up untrained Joe Six Pack to off and fight the bad guys with his shotgun. Back then we did. The need for the orgnaized militia has been answered with the National Guard.

While OT for this thread, you could start a VERY vigorous new thread discussing the Founders' fear of the type of "very large" standing army that we have now, as well as a similarly vigorous new thread about the 'select militia' called the National Guard.

 

[rwilson452]

We don't grant letters of Marque because we signed treaties saying we wouldn't. Not really covered well in history books but letters were grated during the war of 1812 ( England calls this the Seven Years War). England threatened to hang anyone caught.

What is your point here? Do we grant Letters of Marque today? If not, why not? Maybe it is because things have CHANGED and we have a Navy?

 

[USAFNoDak]

Maybe when it comes to machine guns, we should adopt the Swiss model. Just a thought. That way, the government could "feel" comfortable in that they are "regulating" and we get to have the class 3 firearms. We are not going to get the NFA34 or the FOPA86 lifted immediately, but we can start working towards that, once the USSC rules that the 2nd A. does indeed guarantee and individual right.

Why don't the Swiss have huge crime rates when they can have a machine gun kept in the home?