JPFO Article

C

Cnon

New member
By now, we all have seen the video of the tragic events that took place a few days ago when a 9-year-old girl killed her instructor with an Uzi. The child lost control of the machine gun and accidentally shot instructor Charles Vacca in the head. The video went viral, and every gun grabber from Moms Demand Action, whose head hoplophobe Shannon Watts wasted no time in hopes ”that this event will lead to a national discussion about children and guns“ to the charlatans at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, whose scheming staff attorney immediately invoked ”America’s weak gun laws“ as cause for the tragedy, began to demand what they define as ”common sense.“
Click to expand...


More here: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/kenyon-common-sense.htm


For discussion, could the Second Amendment community be trying too hard here in calling for "common sense" laws, that they wind up tramping the Second Amendment?


Cnon
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think that many shooters will fall for "common sense" anything. There's no possible law that would have prevented this. I'm sure the anti's will propose something, but it's more likely along the line of making this a parental hanging offense. More and more I see parents being arrested or kids taken away from the parents for the smallest "infraction." I find this outrageous and I don't even have kids.
 
Exactly what "common sense" law should we have regarding machine guns? The National Firearms Act regulates weapons like the Uzi. It is an unconstitutional taxation scheme that prohibits ownership by all but the most affluent and makes possession difficult even for them.

The only measure that could go farther would be an outright ban. If bans on ownership are "common sense," then the MDA and LCAV agenda is quite clear. They might want to be careful with their rhetoric.
 
Exactly what "common sense" law should we have regarding machine guns? The National Firearms Act regulates weapons like the Uzi. It is an unconstitutional taxation scheme that prohibits ownership by all but the most affluent and makes possession difficult even for them.
Click to expand...


You got that right, Tom.


Cnon
 
Machineguntony said:
You don't have to be affluent to own an Uzi.
Click to expand...
Yeah, actually you do. First there's the $200 "tax stamp" you have to buy. Then there's the fact that anything capable of full-auto costs at least ten times as much as a semi-auto version of the same firearm. And then the prodigious amount of ammunition that gets chewed up when playing with a full-auto toy.

You may not need to be filthy rich, but you do have to have better than average financial resources.
 
Machineguntony said:
You can get an Uzi for $8000. That isn't rich.
Click to expand...
You must live in a different universe than mine. I work in an office with 22 professional engineers. I don't know their exact salaries, but I know from enough casual discussions about shopping for cars or saving for vacations that not one of them could afford to drop $8,000 on a toy like an Uzi. I don't think I personally know anyone who could afford that.
 
$8,000 dollars represents an as yet un purchased engagement ring or rent for the next two years.

which represents the exact intent of the NFA '34. Price machine guns, and other "gangster" weapons out of the hands of the common man.

But if you're the Chief Inspector for the local Pinkerton Bureau, well, then set yourself up a trust and buy that M-1917 to keep them Northern Commie Agitators from getting too uppity.
 
Was there a lack of common sense involved here? Sure. Will a law fix it? Nope.

It's human nature. When you get familiar with something you get careless and sloppy with it.

Go ask the reloading forum what the dumbest mistake they ever made was.

Or browse the rifle and/or gunsmithing forum for pictures of some poor sap who blew out his barrel. There's more than one picture of more than one rifle at one of my local ranges with a blown out rifle, one because some poor sap forgot to take the rod out of the barrel before firing.

Anybody else remember sitting on their dad's lap and "steering" the car while it was in motion?

Anybody want to guess how many farmer's kids are run over by a tractor every year?
 
SPEMack618 said:
which represents the exact intent of the NFA '34.
Click to expand...

It certainly was the intent of the NFA but it hasn't really been the effect for many years. The NFA isn't responsible for the current price of machine guns. That would be the '86 ban. $200 for the tax in today's world is trivial. The '86 ban made machine guns that were a few hundred $$ in 1985 into $20,000 today. That's literally a home for some people.
 
Last edited:
The Hughes amendment that closed the registration for new select fire weapons is, in fact, a ban on an entire class of firearms that are commonly used throughout the world. It is a government prohibition on new, full auto firearms for everyone, except the government (and dealers) at all times. This ban cannot possibly be squared with the clear intent and purpose as announced in the first clause of the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia asserts in Heller that modern technology creates a disconnect between the militia/anti-tyranny purpose and the self-defense purpose of the amendment. That's true as far as it goes, because very few people can afford their own fighter jet or aircraft carrier.

But what creates the disconnect where small arms are concerned, is the government's own, very recent ('86) prohibition on new sales to all law-abiding people at all times.

Remember, the court said that the second amendment extends, prima facia, to all instruments that constitute a bearable arm.

But then the court implies that imagining second amendment protection for some small arms, "M-16s and the like", would be an "alarming" reading of US v Miller. Why?

Actually, wouldn't that be a plain reading of US versus Miller and clause 1? The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.
 
Last edited:
Actually, wouldn't that be a plain reading of US versus Miller and clause 1? The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.
Click to expand...
I agree and believe you are exactly correct. However, by the time you get to be a Supreme Court Justice, you have for a while been living in a world in which you get potentially serious death threats and work (if not live) in a building protected by armed security. I fear that can change one's view on what is "ordinary" or "reasonable" and what liberties might "need" to be restricted to some degree.
 
You don't have to be affluent to own an Uzi.
Click to expand...

That depends on your personal definition of affluent.

$8000 for an Uzi may not seem like much to you, but to me, or the next guy it could be a much different matter.

I have a roof over my head, enough to eat, and enough money to keep from freezing to death during a normal winter. And a fixed income sufficient to maintain this, currently.

Compared to many people in the US, and a huge number of people in other parts of the world, I am well off.

Compared to someone making $50K a year, I'm not. Compared to someone making enough to drop $8000 on a gun I'm poor. In terms of money, at any rate. I have enough for my daily needs, and have over the years gotten nearly everything I ever really wanted. I think I'm well off, even though I cannot afford a machine gun, thanks to the effect of various laws on the market price.
 
Also bear in mind, even moreso than other firearms, the real cost is not in the platform, but the ammunition to enjoy it. We all know the expensive part of firearms is feeding the beast. It plays a pretty big part on why there's so much more reloading than gun smithing.
 
The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.
Click to expand...

While I'd have to go and look up the exact wording used (and I'm not going to, you can, if you want..;)) I believe that the court in the Miller ruling actually did get it technically right.

IIRC, their ruling about short barrel shotguns not being covered as militia arms (useful in warfare), began with the words "this court has been presented no evidence..."

They didn't actually say that short barrel shotguns had no utility, they said they hadn't been shown evidence that they did (and in that were fully correct, as such evidence was not given to the court, as far as I can see).

The practical effect and laws have been enforced as if they actually said that they aren't useful in warfare, but they, technically didn't say that.

I'm old, tired, and my memory isn't what it once was, so I may be in error, if I am, I'm going to let you show me...:D
 
I believe the plaintiff died before the court case was concluded. It was somewhat of a default.
Click to expand...
He did, and his attorney couldn't make it to DC on short notice. The government was free to argue its case without opposition.

Add to that the fact that Justice McReynolds was known for being sloppy (among other things), and we ended up with a perfunctory opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top