Select-fire

[Tennessee Gentleman]

that may be the closest we have ever come to a consensus, not 100% but it'll do.

I'll take it!

That's not what I am saying. I don't think they were ever actually coupled. Are you referring to this?

Anti-gun types used to argue (stupidly) that the COTUS did not protect the RTKBA for personal self defense but rather only for "collective" or common defense. So, the government could restrict or even ban weapons for personal use as opposed to using arms as part of a militia service for the common defense. The point was stupid so it confuses things. In other words I could claim a RTKBA only as a member of the militia (which wasn't around how convienent!).

I personally believed as you do that self defense is defense whether I am fighting off a bunch of thugs or the Soviet Army. I have a right to personal self defense. Scalia upheld the militia part and then elaborated that we have this individual right apart from militia service and killed that old anti canard about the 2A applied only to militias.

Read Caroline Kennedy's insipid and probably ghost written like her Dad's Pulitzer book In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action when she discusses the 2A she uses the Morton Grove decision to explain the 2A. Of course Morton grove doesn't ban handguns anymore do they?

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We will never, and I mean NEVER resolve this issue as a single party issue.

Give that man a seegar! Not just one party but not a liberal/conservative issue either. Like Tom Gresham, I don't care one hoot what anyone on this board thinks about Gay Rights, Abortion, Prayer in Schools or Area 51. When it comes to gun rights all I care about is what you carry

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If the stated purpose is for the militia, then the arms protected must be up to the task to meet the standard of the purpose.

But the state could give you those weapons when they called you up. That would not mean you could have them otherwise necessarily for personal use. Me personally I think the bright line is the AR-15 in semi or other types. Plenty of firepower for personal use.

 

[maestro pistolero]

But the state could give you those weapons when they called you up.

Then what would be the point of stating a militia purpose and then protecting keeping and bearing for that purpose? It wouldn't be necessary if that's what they intended.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Then what would be the point of stating a militia purpose and then protecting keeping and bearing for that purpose?

To keep Congress from disarming it which the anti-Federalists feared. The COTUS put unprecedented control over the state militias and the states feared the Fed could disarm them.

At that time the militia was primarily armed by its members because of economic reasons. However, today the state would arm the militia if they called it forth.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
Then what would be the point of stating a militia purpose and then protecting keeping and bearing for that purpose?

To keep Congress from disarming it which the anti-Federalists feared. The COTUS put unprecedented control over the state militias and the states feared the Fed could disarm them.

At that time the militia was primarily armed by its members because of economic reasons. However, today the state would arm the militia if they called it forth.

Perhaps. There's no substitute for the bird in the hand. And I am unaware of any mechanism whereby the state could arm citizens in an instant. I would hate to have to wait for FEMA to supply the only means to defend our community. We may be depending on thinly spread resources, the ability to mobilize, the condition of the roads in a natural or unnatural disaster, weather, and lots of other factors.

As soon as professional forces could be deployed it's all moot. The critical, immediate need for defense in an emergency is the only scenario I can imagine where a modern militia might be temporarily called upon. In that case, the wisdom of individual keeping and bearing becomes as relevant as it was in the late 1700s. It's like a bunch of privately owned fire extinguishers vs a fire truck and crew.

Great points, TG. And I see your point on the bright line being semi-auto ARs for civilians. I like the idea of paralleling standard issue firearms from our military, because that may be a moving target. Rather than move the line in the sand, we could establish now that those not prohibited from possessing firearms may have a standard issue firearm, whatever that means that year. The problem is that some states are banning even the semi-auto versions.

In CA there is a 10 round limit, and no detachable magazines allowed for ARs with standard features. It horrible for those residents (I used to be one, before the ban). CA just passed the ammo registration bill requiring, among other things, fingerprints for ammo. And they banned shows at the Cow Palace in the Bay area. Both measures are awaiting signature from Gov. Swarzenegger. It's unbelievable how far from center a few states have gone.

 

[csmsss]

Perhaps. There's no substitute for the bird in the hand. And I am unaware of any mechanism whereby the state could arm citizens in an instant. I would hate to have to wait for FEMA to supply the only means to defend our community. We may be depending on thinly spread resources, the ability to mobilize, the condition of the roads in a natural or unnatural disaster, weather, and lots of other factors.

Hahahahaha. How true. As one who has been through two major hurricanes in three years, I can readily attest to FEMA's incompetence and inability to rapidly accomplish even the most insignificant of missions.

 

[Yellowfin]

Here's the problem, TG, with the state government being in charge of loaning you the heavy firepower when you need it: What happens if the enemy you need to defend yourself from is them? As you stated earlier, self defense is anything from a burgler all the way up to the Soviet Army. The problem is what if your country's own army is acting like the Soviet Army? You and I both know that's happened almost everywhere else but here, and even here a few times. Got any Native American in your genes? If so, somewhere in your family's past there was genocide that very well could have involved them needing to defend themselves against it. Exactly what kept Japanese American internment from being a massive slaughter, if it could have been justified and/or covered up? Virtually nothing, as far as anything they could have done about it, unless they were to take armed resistance. (Did any do so?)

I don't think we should forget the Colfax massacre, either, or the numerous coal miners' revolts. Yes, folks, our own state, local, and federal governments can and have been at times very, very bad people.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Perhaps. There's no substitute for the bird in the hand. And I am unaware of any mechanism whereby the state could arm citizens in an instant. I would hate to have to wait for FEMA to supply the only means to defend our community. We may be depending on thinly spread resources, the ability to mobilize, the condition of the roads in a natural or unnatural disaster, weather, and lots of other factors.

All interesting scenarios but imagine trying to effectively mount a military operation with Joe Citizen showing up with every conceivable type of weapon and more importantly ammo. Since I really believe the militia to be a thing of the past I do think that local community defense in some extreme cases (natural diseaster) would be helpful. However, the threat today of a foreign invader while we possess nukes would be suicide. BTW I used to work a lot with FEMA and I sure would hate to rely on them for defense but then they would probably miss the party.

Here's the problem, TG, with the state government being in charge of loaning you the heavy firepower when you need it: What happens if the enemy you need to defend yourself from is them?

See I don't think the Founding Fathers feared the states, just the Fed. I think that was the reason for the 2A militia protection and the doctrine (now abandoned) that we would always have a small standing army and that the majority of our defense would be the militia. Realities of war changed that and the good 'ole american aversion to military life that a functional miltia (not unlike Switzerland) would require.

Anyway, as I have posted in other threads on TFL, I do not believe the simple ownership of firearms by citizens protect us from tryannical government. Our democratic institutions do and even with blatant abuses like NO after Katrina, those institutions stop and put right those abuses. But that is another thread.

 

[Yellowfin]

In Tennessee I would perhaps be more confident that democracy and its institutions form an effective buffer against tyranny. Having lived in California and now in New York has shown that to be of little assurance to me at all.

 

[maestro pistolero]

Today it could be argued that we have as much, or more to fear from state governments than the feds. Any medium-sized state government today is multiples larger and more powerful than than the entire Federal Government at the time of founding. The states had relationships to the people more akin to a local governments today. That's why they weren't as suspicious of them, because local government was closely held, and you knew everybody.

 

[zukiphile]

Confusing the organised militia with the militia, then invoking the state's power to call forth, rather than raise, the militia doesn't serve clarity in making sense of the 2d am. right.

Today, a $200 tax, while still objectionable, is much more reasonable. So given the figures above, how many of those AR-15's might actually have been full-auto, assuming the NFA registry had never been closed?

I honestly have no idea. Neither does anyone else. In common use? You just can't argue one way or another.

The most that can be said is that the argument is foreclosed not by civilian action, but by government action.

I honestly have some idea.

I find the money some people pay for FA arms stunning. If people buy these things at a grotesque premium as well as a $200 tax, this indicates a large and unstatisfied demand.

While we can't give a precise number of FA owners in the absence of these impediments, we must conclude that FA would be far more common without them. The original point about the circularity of the putative government argument that FA arms are subject to restriction becuase they are uncommon, where it the government itself making it less common, yields to the state the power to invalidate any possession merely by the act of invalidating it.

That is no right at all.

Just after WWII, very few people had or could afford a car that topped 100mph. As technology advanced and we became wealthier, ownership of vehicles that could do this increased to the point that most ordinary passenger cars can do this, even though there are very few places that this ability can be legally demonstrated.

Anti-lock-brakes, cellular telephones, cable television and dozens of other consumer goods we consider ubiquitous are so merely because the government doesn't prohibit them and we like having them.

There is little reason to suppose that FA arms should be different.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Search on Switzerland - they are reducing their armed forces and there are serious moves to restrict gun ownership and control those military guns.

It ain't the gun cliche anymore.

 

[melchloboo]

I think the OP makes an excellent point that I had not ever considered, namely that full auto weapons are uncommon because of restrictions.

But how to get the federal ban on new autos lifted? A political impossibility for the near future. One hope might be to create a "loop hole" for full auto trigger groups that may not be transferred with a complete weapon.

 

[maestro pistolero]

But how to get the federal ban on new autos lifted? A political impossibility for the near future. One hope might be to create a "loop hole" for full auto trigger groups that may not be transferred with a complete weapon.

It will take a lot more than that. The easiest way to get it started would be for some states to authorize FA for militia training. The feds can't touch it then. Getting the culture to accept it is as important as any legal maneuvering we could do.

As an example, most states didn't even have shall issue CCW licensing 10 years ago. Now they comprise the great majority of the states. Could you imagine the uproar if the states with shall-issue CCW suddenly repealed it? Let folks get a taste of freedom, and they want more and more of it. People get from government what they demand of it.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think the OP makes an excellent point that I had not ever considered, namely that full auto weapons are uncommon because of restrictions.

Couldn't we say the same things about rockets launchers and hand grenades or mortars? If they weren't so expensive (because of limited supply) and restricted by the NFA wouldn't more people have them too? They cost very little to make and so could be sold cheaply and without restrictions anyone could buy them.

I think the problem with the argument is showing that they were ever in common use.

We now have a more affluent society with more disposible income so that might account for the demand today coupled with a fixed supply that causes high prices.

There were only 118,000 FA weapons (according to Antipitas) in circulation in 1986 before the registry closed out of hundreds of millions of other type guns. Doesn't sound like to me they were in common use ever.

 

[raimius]

I doubt you'll ever be able to prove they were in common use in the US. They were restricted with a substantial (for the time) tax when the technology for shoulder-fired automatics was still relatively new. We are talking about technologies newer than the GE mini-gun is to us.

 

[maestro pistolero]

I think the problem with the argument is showing that they were ever in common use.

Common use by whom? When did the common use test become about civilians? The Miller case ruling stated that to be protected, a weapon had to be common in a military setting.

 

[raimius]

Good point.
I was referring to the argument presented earlier, which I may have misunderstood. I thought it was being argued that select-fire weapons would not be currently "unusual" without the NFA restrictions, and it was being argued that they were non unusual at one point (before the NFA).

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

When did the common use test become about civilians?

Always was about civilians. Neither Miller nor Heller were about weapons in common use by the military. Both cases were about what arms a civilian could carry and whether the 2A protection extended to them. No one questions the right of the armed forces to carry FA or other types of weapons but rather what the private citizen carries. See page 52-3 of Heller.

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at
179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second

We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

I thought it was being argued that select-fire weapons would not be currently "unusual" without the NFA restrictions, and it was being argued that they were non unusual at one point (before the NFA).

That was being argued and I have asserted that FA was never in common use by civilians (other than criminals) even when it was legal to own them without restriction. Same same for sawed off shotguns.

I further assert that were they to become unrestricted today very few numbers of those that own firearms would buy them. I think that would be analogous to the % of those that CCW as measured against those who own firearms.