maestro pistolero said:
Boy TG, not your usual cheerful self.
Sorry, watching the Titans play this year does that to you
maestro pistolero said:
Forgetting FA for the moment, do you care to chime in on the circular logic trap at all?
Yeah OK. I think Gura answered it pretty well. Handguns although banned in DC are and have been for over a hundred years in common use by civilians for self defense. In fact either in the decision or one of the Amicus briefs it was validly argued that handguns were the ultimate SD weapon due to their size and compactness.
The problem I have with applying that to FA is that is order to do so you must show that FA was in common use or would be if the restrictions were lifted. I don't think you can do that and I think the evidence points to FA not being in common use because Joe Civilian doesn't think they are appropriate for SD. The fact that just before the FOPA registry closure there were only 118,000 on the books points that out rather clearly. I think the circular logic argument fails because FA were never in common use and that was because people did not care to own them. The current public aversion to said ownership points that out as well. Therefore referring to FA as no in common use by civilians for lawful purposes is correct and not circular.
tyme said:
How can you know that FA would not be in the mix if the NFA didn't exist? You're drawing conclusions based on circular reasoning.
No, I am drawing the conclusion on facts.
118,000 on the books before the registry closed out of hundreds of millions of total guns owned legally. If the demand had been that great, many many more would have been legally owned. Your argument that the NFA stopped that is thin and I see no evidence to support it. FA was available for reasonable prices before 1986 and $200 while more in 1986 than today was not overburdensome (I was around back then).
Again, common use is a criteria validly developed by the court to ascertain whether a particular type of firearm is protected by the 2A. The court is unwilling (as opposed to gun enthusiasts on TFL) to allow civilians to own whatever type weapon they can afford so they developed criteria to distinguish those types. Makes perfect sense to me but not to someone who wants no restrictions on firearm ownership. Most folk aren't in that camp. Common use criteria is fine for 2A issues but not other BoRs concerns and trying to tie that test to free speech is without merit and really a strawman.
BTW, how do you know they would be in common use if the NFA weren't around? Isn't that a very large unproveable assumption and circular?
divemedic said:
Using your logic, the only guns that are protected by the 2A are muskets, they being the only guns that were in common use when the 2A was ratified.
That is a false choice and you know it. No one but you have said in common use at the time of the 2A. The choice is not muskets or belt fed machine guns. Also, talking about new models of handguns is a red herring too. They all operate the same and we can honestly know the difference between FA and semi auto or shotgun or revolver. The issue is what firearms are protected by the 2A and the court is using a good criteria to determine that.
divemedic said:
The 40 watt Plasma rifle is not protected by the 2A,
It isn't a firearm either
csmsss said:
devised tests and scrutinies and so forth based not on constitutionally valid grounds but on its own tortured, conflicted "logic". And stare decisis then conveniently keeps the body hidden from subsequent criticism and repair.
What makes your "logic" any less "tortured" than theirs? Are you a judge? Have you any legal training? Since law and precedent don't work what method would you suggest? Oh I know, let every man determine for himself what is constitutional or not right? In other words anarchy.
C'mon folks I may not agree with everything the Supremes rule on but they use the best system I know of to arrive at those decisions and certainly better than any ideas I have heard on TFL.