Heller, 2nd Amendment, Automatic Weapons etc.

Deregulation of suppressors would certainly be something I'd like to see.
Click to expand...


Same here, I hate it everytime I send a $200 check to the ATF with an application asking mother may I. But, it's currently the law so I will abide by it even if it does torq me to no end.
 
An M203 is definately a firearm.
Click to expand...

It definately is not according to the ATF it's a destructive device.

I feel your pain and understand what you are saying. However, I see that there is a violence problem now and even though I support CCW as one of the solutions I think we have got to put every obstacle we can to the loonies that are reading the d*mn newspapers, getting impressed and then going into a mall and shooting people. I really have a beef with the mental health looby who doesn't want mentally ill on the databases. We as gun owners can't just stand here and rage about machine guns when we have nuts buying guns legally and killing folks.
Click to expand...

Would it make you feel better if they run people over with a Chevy? If they want to do damage they will. I grew up with a mentally ill father who never used a gun when he would have an "episode" but he used the family car during 3 episodes. Before you ask, yes we had plenty of guns in the house.
Do I have empathy for those injured or killed by a nut? Yes, but I also understand that further regulation will do nothing but make the honest "normal" gun owners jump through unneccessary hoops, discourage the next generation of possible gun owners and do little to nothing to prevent criminals and the mentally ill from harming people.
That is the nice thing about America and the internet. I can sit hear and rage about anything I want.:o
 
Last edited:
Part of the problem is the $200 check, but the bigger problem is the increase in overall price because of the low sales volumes because of the tax and paperwork discouraging people from buying them. Suppressors I've seen listed cost a friggin fortune compared to what they would cost in an open and free market--no way in hell would they cost as much or more than the firearm itself if they could sell in any kind of volume. The current prices reflect the need to recover overhead with low sales volume. The CLEO signoff requirement is another nasty and unnecessary obstacle as well.
 
We as gun owners can't just stand here and rage about machine guns when we have nuts buying guns legally and killing folks.
Click to expand...

By definition, ineligible nuts can't legally buy guns and eligible, legal purchasers who subsequently go nuts are just an unfortunate fact of the human condition.

The Brady Gang favors taking away people's Second Amendment rights on nearly any hint of a mental health issue. But trampeling Second Amendment rights is no more a viable solution than trampeling First Amendment rights by preventing the "d*mn newspapers" from glorifying mass murders.
 
The Brady bunch seem inclined to think and would love to legislate that even wanting to own a firearm is in itself a mental disorder. Interestingly enough, fear of inanimate objects and making imaginary enemies of them is in fact a verifiable mental illness that in and of itself is legal cause for involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility.
 
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.
Click to expand...

That is the kind of classicism and elitism that has led to gun control in the past that I was talking about that has led to eventual seizure because someone was a Gypsy, a Jew, a Negro, or a Highlander. The social ills of any given time are used to promote gun control and physical control over a segment of the populace 'for the good of society'. Did you read the JPFO brief by any chance?

As a retired officer I was able to purchase a SIG for far less than what a civilian pays.
Click to expand...

Of course, you're a retired cop so you already seem to have an 'Only' perspective on this topic; you forgot that being a cop is job and that you are also a 'civilian'.

Your fear of Class 3 weapons in 'civilian' hands is ridiculous and parallels the same worn-out argument against concealed carry; The *only* crime committed by a legally owned machine gun was committed by a cop so I hope you can appreciate the irony of your position.

If you are like a few of your peers then you think that a covert and subtle police state is a necessary evil and that promoting a 'limited form of gun control' or 'reasonable restrictions' are for the 'benefit of society' 'to combat terrorism' and 'to protect the police'. That particular line of thought is *exactly* why civilian ownership of Class 3 weapons is necessary; that kind of elitism leads to tyranny and is a slippery slope that renders all that Alan Gura is fighting for worthless.:rolleyes:
 
I think you misunderstand TN Gent, docwatson. He has a more narrow view of the 2A than I do, but isn't opposed to, for example, civilians owning flame throwers. I doubt he'll join the Brady Bunch any time soon. ;)

A little-discussed point concerning the police is the exception in the DC handgun ban for retired officers. Anyone who had a registered handgun before 1976 AND any retired officer can have a registered handgun.

That rather obscure provision may or may not be "right" but it made a difference in this case. In the DC District, unlike pretty much everywhere else, you have to actually face prosecution to bring a constitutional challenge like this one. If you don't face prosecution, you have no standing for such a challenge. This is why most of the plaintiffs were tossed from the case, and why Heller's standing was accepted by the court. From the DC opinion:

At oral argument, counsel for the District maintained that we should not view this as a licensing case for standing purposes because D.C.’s firearm registration system amounts to a complete prohibition on handgun ownership. The District argues that we must analyze appellants’ standing exclusively under our pre-enforcement precedents, Seegars and Navegar. We disagree on both counts. The District does not completely prohibit handgun registration. See D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) (allowing certificates for pistols already registered in the District prior to 1976); D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(b) (excluding retired police officers of the Metropolitan Police Department from the ban on pistol registration). Had Heller been a retired police officer, presumably the District would have granted him a registration certificate. The same would be true if Heller had attempted to register a long gun, as opposed to a handgun. In any event, Heller has invoked his rights under the Second Amendment to challenge the statutory classifications used to bar his ownership of a handgun under D.C. law, and the formal process of application and denial, however routine, makes the injury to Heller’s alleged constitutional interest concrete and particular. He is not asserting that his injury is only a threatened prosecution, nor is he claiming only a general right to handgun ownership; he is asserting a right to a registration certificate, the denial of which is his distinct injury.
Click to expand...
 
If I get on my high horse about 'Onlys' it's because a year ago I tried to get a campaign together to get 40-50 people to apply for their DC carry permits as the law on DC's books says that anyone from any of the 50 states with a carry permit can apply. I was told by the desk officer that, in practice, they only give them to police officers and the politically connected and blow off regular citizens. (There's another DC firearms case post-Heller that needs to be started!)

Now, TG may be a fine man but IMNSHO his position on 922(O) belies his true feelings about his position in regards to the 'civilian' populace. I am just tired of the 'us versus them' that I see in the greater LE community at ALL levels against gun owners - particularly against CCL and Class 3 owners.:mad:
 
Tenn Gent,
As you know when interpreting constitutional law the founder's intent has to be reconciled with the reality of modern times.
Click to expand...
Reconciled, not ignored.
You can't just say, what would the founders think becuase they had no idea of the advances of science or technology.
Click to expand...

Sure ya can.
A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined,
but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a
status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
which would include their own government.
Click to expand...
-George Washington
See how easy that was? :D Nothing in there about "common usage" or "suitable for civillian use".
The idea is "means to fend off your own government". So now reconcile your position with his if you can.

How's about the first Amendment? The advances in communications technology and changes in our society weren't envisioned by the drafters either. Maybe we should have a 5 day waiting period on potentially inflammatory news articles or a regulatory tax on high definition cameras. That'd cut down on rioting.

Seriously... this is not an argument you can legally support. You're merely putting forth your own opinion and attempting to disguise it as Constitutional law. A weak attempt at Constitutional ventriloquism if you will. But we can all see your lips moving.
 
Of course, you're a retired cop so you already seem to have an 'Only' perspective on this topic; you forgot that being a cop is job and that you are also a 'civilian'.
Click to expand...

For the record and to prevent misunderstanding I am not a retired police officer. I am a retired Army Officer.

Seriously... this is not an argument you can legally support. You're merely putting forth your own opinion and attempting to disguise it as Constitutional law. A weak attempt at Constitutional ventriloquism if you will. But we can all see your lips moving.
Click to expand...

As is your opinion as well. The only opinions that will matter are the nine who just heard the case. I think the dialogue they had with the various counsel was fascinating. The quote from GW didn't faze me. He said sufficient arms and I think that means arms in common use by civilians. You think it means any firearm I can afford to buy. That is where we differ. Alan Gura put it forth so we'll see if it has a legal basis of not.

I think you misunderstand TN Gent, docwatson. He has a more narrow view of the 2A than I do, but isn't opposed to, for example, civilians owning flame throwers. I doubt he'll join the Brady Bunch any time soon.
Click to expand...

Thanks Publius for having a cooler head. One of the reason I never fit well in some "groups" is because of the mental orthodoxy they impose. Step out of line with the required party line and you are a scurilous traitor. I even see it a bit with one of the moderators here who doesn't seem to like the issues I have brought up. That's too bad as a lot of supporters for gun rights fall away because of the extreme positions others take. I love firearms and have since I was 16 years old but I don't agree with all gun people on the politics. I would hope we could have a bigger tent that that.
 
Last edited:
Now, TG may be a fine man but IMNSHO his position on 922(O) belies his true feelings about his position in regards to the 'civilian' populace. I am just tired of the 'us versus them' that I see in the greater LE community at ALL levels against gun owners - particularly against CCL and Class 3 owners.
Click to expand...

Well, I would like to think I am OK. My wife and son love me!:D
I am not against the class 3 community. I would love to go visit Knob Creek shootoff someday. I do believe that class 3 firearms are unsuitable for civilian personal defense and that is not just based on 2A grounds but practical experience and knowledge of the weapons. I think they are great to take out to the farm and shoot (expensive). However, I have enumerated that before and you can look at my other posts. As to 2A a line will have to be drawn or a practical definition put forth as to what is an "arm". It will have to go beyond Webster's I think. I believe that line is "weapons in common use by civilians". Others think it should be whatever the US Army Infantry is using at the present. I disagree.
 
Statement on this Thread and the Otheer One I Had Started

To those who have been corresponding with me:

In another thread I started, I ended my posting and may have to do so here soon. One of the moderators I guess wasn't happy with me and posted this:

Interesting debating technique. The OP creates the dialogue and posts up until he is actually challenged with ideas on lawmaking that he cannot refute (See John's posts #79, #81 and #85) or post a counter argument to and then exits the discussion he himself started.
Click to expand...

So let me explain myself and bid you all good luck. See, I have this pesky thing called a life and a job. Now, I love coming to this site and reading interesting topics. That being said I respect a lot of the views and thoughts I read here as well. Yes there are strange troubling people here but the good ones make it worthwhile to read on. The two threads I started was a honest attempt to explore issues that most of my friends around here care nothing about. So, the debates were useful to me to help with my thoughts on gun politics so I thank most of you for your inciteful comments.
Now, as to the moderators comments. I could sit here for months and refute every post thrown at me by you or anybody else, but see that takes a lot of time and ultimately is pointless. People have their opinions and that's fine. After awhile saying the same things over and over again with little variation is tiresome. If the rule of this board is once you start a thread you have to answer and answer til everyone gets tired then I surrender and will go elsewhere for my discussions. Not a problem. However, thanks again for your time (most of you). I look forward to reading more of your posts but I must travel soon and may not be able to respond.
 
I am not against the class 3 community. I would love to go visit Knob Creek shootoff someday. I do believe that class 3 firearms are unsuitable for civilian personal defense and that is not just based on 2A grounds but practical experience and knowledge of the weapons.
Click to expand...

I understand that you're not against them, I do believe your prejudices are misplaced though. I've got a bit of practical experience and knowledge about weapons as an NCO with 21 years and still on active duty. Everyone of the weapons I listed are class 3 weapons. While I agree that full auto isn't practical for most people, practical isn't what the 2nd is about.
 
I do believe your prejudices are misplaced though. I've got a bit of practical experience and knowledge about weapons as an NCO with 21 years and still on active duty. Everyone of the weapons I listed are class 3 weapons. While I agree that full auto isn't practical for most people,
Click to expand...

Don, Just out of curiosity, not related to 2A, how many people do you know who actually carry automatic weapons or destructive devices for self-defense and not just for the hobby aspect. Would you use one of these weapons in a civilian self defense context? Not just way out there on your farm now (if you have one) but in town walking around.
 
Don, Just out of curiosity, not related to 2A, how many people do you know who actually carry automatic weapons or destructive devices for self-defense and not just for the hobby aspect. Would you use one of these weapons in a civilian self defense context? Not just way out there on your farm now (if you have one) but in town walking around.
Click to expand...


Absolutely none, but that is the point that you are missing. The reason behind the 2nd was to ensure the people were armed for a time when men like you and I become tyronnous. It wasn't limited to this need or that need.
Now many people do you know who use a Ruger Super Redhawk with 9 1/2" barrel for self defense? I'm not talking leaving it on a table in the house, but actually conceal it for self defense;)


I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm actually enjoying the debate, it's refreshing for a change that it hasn't turned into a name calling fest for the most part.
 
Don, Just out of curiosity, not related to 2A, how many people do you know who actually carry automatic weapons or destructive devices for self-defense and not just for the hobby aspect. Would you use one of these weapons in a civilian self defense context? Not just way out there on your farm now (if you have one) but in town walking around.
Click to expand...

I can't because I can't afford too :( I would love to have an m-16 for self defense. I prefer FA over 3 round burst though. Burst makes it kinda choppy.

I would use one in my house, but I wouldn't carry one around with me, but I don't know anyone who would carry around any non concealable firearm for self defense around in town. Does that mean shotguns and rifles are innapproprate for civilian self defense and therefore shouldn't be viewed as suitable for civilian use?

Class three firearms are a hobby for most, but they need to be defended just as much as any other firearm. Why? Because hunting is a hobby, therefore hunting rifles are a hobby. Skeet shooting is a hobby, therefore shotguns are a hobby. None of us would carry around rifles or shotguns around in town for self defense so by your logic they would hobby firearms and be subject to ban just like automatic firearms are. If you apply anything less than strict scrutiny to the 2A then you open the door for all firearms to be regulated and eventually banned.
 
As is your opinion as well.
Click to expand...
It's not just *my* opinion. It's the opinion of the people who drafted and ratified the second amendment. And while I agree that the Justices' collective opinion is ultimately the overriding factor, it doesn't strike me as a smart debating tactic to go begging hat-in-hand when it means discarding the law that was supporting your case.

Which brings us full-circle. If he's arguing that a ban on a class of weapons is Constitutional, then he concedes that he has no basis for his case.
And since we're back where we started, I'll exit the merry-go-round now.
 
Tenessee Gentleman,

Thank you for starting this and your other recent thread. I have been particularly active in the threads because I had a rare couple of extra days off from work that enabled me to do so. The topics were thought-provoking and discussed in a polite manner and I have thoroughly enjoyed the discourse.

We have mostly disagreed in our positions, but not because they are so fundamentally different. I see three basic views of RKBA questions: a theoretical Constitutional view (i.e. 2A covers ANY arms); a pragmatic current legal and political view (i.e. 2A covers common pistols, rifles, and shotguns); and a wishful view of what I would like (i.e. 2A also covers machine guns, nearly unlimited carry, etc.). I feel comfortable arguing any of those three views if the argument promotes more discussion and, hopefully, more understanding.

Okay, let's get the gloves back on and get to it!
 
Absolutely none, but that is the point that you are missing.
Click to expand...

No, that was just curiosity. I do not subscribe to the "give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile" view of many gun owners. Don't get me wrong! I oppose most gun control legislation. But I don't believe in unlimited rights and so the common use question comes to bear. I don't believe Mr. Gura could have successfully argued what some here thought he should have. I don't agree with Goslash that Mr. Gura HAD to argue that no class of "arms" could ever be banned in order to throw out the DC gun ban and establish the individual right to keep and bear arms. He would lose that and I (unlike) some others do not think civilians possessing grenade launchers is key to our right to keep and bear arms. I might be mixing policy with law but the courts do that ALL the time and I was taught (believe it or not I had a year in law school) that public policy concerns was part of interpreting the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top