Justices extend gun owner rights nationwide

TurtleDude said:

BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians

Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose". :mrgreen:

As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.

Goshin said:

Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose". :mrgreen:

As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.

Click to expand...

THe hughes amendment is clearly unconstitutional

as is the 200 dollar NFA fee

In fact the license requirements are as well


M16 rifles and HK MP5s ought to be sold under the same rules as currently apply to AR 15's and Glocks

explosive devices such as RPGs-now that bruises the concept of an individual infantry weapon so I might concede that the current Title II rules should apply

but if civilian police departments use a weapon, that should take it out of the Class III licensing arena

Goshin said:

Strictly speaking, I think anything that can be and might be carried by a modern infantryman, which falls under the definition of a "small arm", ought to be considered protected for civilian possession under the 2A. Also any weapon used by any police department or federal agency as a personal weapon. Also any weapon suitable for self-defense, sport, hunting, or "any other lawful purpose". :mrgreen:

As a compromise, I'm okay with the current law in my state: you have to have a Class III license to possess things like full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and suchlike, and there are storage requirements and etc.

Click to expand...

I agree with that. Since fully auto (in my opinion) is not really needed for anything outside military and certain law enforcement areas I think we can regulate it by a permitting process (since military and law enforcement already require training I don't think this is unfair). But as you said self defense and hunting type guns I think should be completely free of regulation except maybe a background check. Pretty much what we got now.

TurtleDude said:

BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians

Click to expand...

Civilian police officers have to go through quite a bit of training to get their machine guns, so I don't see why we would not require the same for your average citizen. In my opinion this justified by my prior position.

Law enforcement IMO could be thought of as a well regulated malitia (meaning they are trained), so I think if a citizen wants to have the same firepower they need to have similar qualifications. If they want a non-military gun just to protect themselves I don't think we should stop them.

drz-400 said:

I agree with that. Since fully auto (in my opinion) is not really needed for anything outside military and certain law enforcement areas I think we can regulate it by a permitting process (since military and law enforcement already require training I don't think this is unfair). But as you said self defense and hunting type guns I think should be completely free of regulation except maybe a background check. Pretty much what we got now.

Click to expand...

I disagree since police are a relatively new phenomena as is a full time military. When the Constitution of the United States was written, the only standing military and police the states had were the militias. Militias handled not only military functions, but also police functions in the arrest and detainment of criminals. This is where citizen's arrest comes from. I'm not including sheriffs in this since anyone could be a sheriff if they won an election. Under the Militia Act of 1792, it stipulates that militia members were to be armed with artillery and other heavy weapons in addition to warships and standard military arms. As technology moved forward, so did the ownership of new technological weapons like tanks, machine guns, etc... If the government can have it the people should have it as a deterrant against the government. People can buy all manner of weapons, including machine guns, tanks, etc... provided they pay the tax stamp to own it. Taxing a fundamental right runs contrary to what the founding fathers wanted since under the Militia Act of 1792 military arms is prohibited from being taxed among other things.

That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Click to expand...

An interesting note, is that Article I Section VIII Clause XVI states that the federal government is responsible for arming the militias. Here's the full text of the clause.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Click to expand...

Under said clause, the federal government must buy every citizen a military grade weapon in the performance of their duties in the militia. The National Guard is not part of the militia and the Supreme Court has ruled that the National Guard functions as part of the federal military due to the dual oath of enlistment that members take. There hasn't been a Constitutional militia since the early 1900's.

TurtleDude said:

BS-if civilian police officers have machine guns (they do) then the entity that employs them is estopped from claiming such weapons have no legitimate use for other civilians

Click to expand...

Then too,... we have things like this;



What they gonna do?

Ban rubber bands?

Chuz Life said:

Then too,... we have things like this;

What they gonna do?

Ban rubber bands?

Click to expand...

Under BATFE regulations a rubber band when used on a firearm's trigger assembly to make an untaxed machinegun is illegal. You can actually go to jail for it since it alters a single shot weapon into a full auto one that doesn't have a tax stamp.

The_Patriot said:

Under BATFE regulations a rubber band when used on a firearm's trigger assembly to make an untaxed machinegun is illegal. You can actually go to jail for it since it alters a single shot weapon into a full auto one that doesn't have a tax stamp.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect as the hellfire triggers and the like have been upheld in challenges by the ATF.

The reason they are found legal is regardless of the rate of fire,... is precisely because it is still one trigger pull for each round fired. (same as for semi auto).

Bumpfiring is completely legal.

Goobieman said:

No, CC, you fail. The word "words" are not found in the 1st amedment, and as such, under your absurd notion, the use of words is not protected by the constitution.

Click to expand...

You can keep trying, Goobie, but you keep failing. Words mean nothing without definitions, they are just random inkblots. So, you can keep posting this, but I'll just keep laughing at the absurdity of it. Try to come up with a better argument... one that actually makes sense.

Chuz Life said:

This is incorrect as the hellfire triggers and the like have been upheld in challenges by the ATF.

The reason they are found legal is regardless of the rate of fire,... it is still one trigger pull for each round fired. (same as for semi auto).

Bumpfiring is completely legal.

Click to expand...

It depends upon where the rulings take place. If it's only a federal appelate court decision it only pertains to that particular section of the country until the US Supreme Court rules on it to enforce it across all states. A decision in the US 9th Circuit Court does not have any force of law in the 7th Circuit or other circuit's jurisdiction.

Ikari said:

It is in fact part of the definition. The etymology of the word tells us just that. The Oxford English Dictionary has Bear arms to include fighting as well, the functional form of using firearms. And that was the definition of the time. It doesn't matter which version you use now, if bearing arms meant only keeping arms, then we would not have distinguished between the two cases. The phrasing of the 2nd along with the actual definition of "to bear" shows definitively that the verb "to bear" includes the functional use of the device.

Click to expand...

Post the links to the definitions. Everyting that I have seen says quite the opposite, that "to bear" means only "to possess and carry". It is irrelevant as to whether or not use is "implied". I am talking about what is actually said, not what one can interpret. From what I see, the actual definition is "to possess and carry"... and this is also why Goobieman's counter argument is absurd. The actual definition of speech is the one I posted, therefore it applies.

Goobieman said:

His absurdity revolves around the idea that nothing in "keep and bear" includes the actual use of the firearm. Thus, the government may not infringe on you owning or carryng of a gun, but it may restrict, to any and every degree, the actual USE of the gun, even toi the point where it renders useless the right by prohibiting the actual use of the gun in total.

As I said before -- absurd on its face.

Click to expand...

No, a logical position taking a literal view of the 2nd Amendment using precise definitions. You call it absurd because you cannot defend against it. Your dismissals without an ability to defeat the argument only demonstrate it's strength.

The_Patriot said:

It depends upon where the rulings take place. If it's only a federal appelate court decision it only pertains to that particular section of the country until the US Supreme Court rules on it to enforce it across all states. A decision in the US 9th Circuit Court does not have any force of law in the 7th Circuit or other circuit's jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

Bumpfire mechanisms (home made or purchased) require a seperate trigger pull for every round fired,.... And when the gun is held tightly against your shoulder (static) it can ONLY fire one round at a time (semi-auto).

There is a letter (that comes with the HellFire) recomended to be kept with the rifle,... which states this fact to any officer stupid enough to think he can charge you for having an unauthorized full auto.

Chuz Life said:

Bumpfire mechanisms (home made or purchased) require a trigger pull for every round fired,.... And when the gun is held tightly against your shoulder (static) it can ONLY fire one round at a time (semi-auto).

There is a letter (that comes with the HellFire) recomended to be kept with the rifle stating this fact to any officer stupid enough to think he can charge you for having an unauthorized full auto.

Click to expand...

Of this I have no doubt, but like I said it all depends upon where the rulings take place at. A ruling, like the one in the 9th Circuit Court about homemade machineguns being exempt from taxation and to legally own, only applies to the jurisdiction of where the court ruled. It has no effect in other parts of the country. The case I mention is valid only in the 9th Circuit and has no effect in the 7th Circuit where I live.

CaptainCourtesy said:

No, a logical position taking a literal view of the 2nd Amendment using precise definitions. You call it absurd because you cannot defend against it. Your dismissals without an ability to defeat the argument only demonstrate it's strength.

Click to expand...

You're ignoring the part of the definition for arms which states, "To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life." Hostility is defined as, "The state of war between nations or states; the actions of an open enemy; aggression; attacks of an enemy. These secret enmities broke out in hostilities." Ergo, under the strictest definition the Second Amendment encompasses the actual use of said weapons, unless you're saying that no one fires any weapons during a war...

All definitions are compliments of Webster's 1828 Dictionary since it's the closest dictionary I can find online to when the Constitution of the United States was written.

The_Patriot said:

Of this I have no doubt, but like I said it all depends upon where the rulings take place at. A ruling, like the one in the 9th Circuit Court about homemade machineguns being exempt from taxation and to legally own, only applies to the jurisdiction of where the court ruled. It has no effect in other parts of the country. The case I mention is valid only in the 9th Circuit and has no effect in the 7th Circuit where I live.

Click to expand...

What you are not recognizing is the fact that this is not a true conversion of a gun.

It's still a semi-auto in every sense of the word.

It's almost as fast as a full auto. Maybe even faster.

But because it still requires a fresh trigger pull for every round fired,... it's still only a semi-auto.

And that goes for any court and any jurisdiction.

The_Patriot said:

The founding fathers did intend for weapons to be used see Militia Act of 1792. The Militia Act of 1792 orders drills to be conducted by the militia; comprised of every citizen between the ages of 18-45.* Part of the drills are live fire exercises with the weapons a citizen carries or is assigned to use; in the case of artillery and warships.

*I use this phrasing because in modern times women and minorities are not disbarred from serving in the military and the discipline standards the militia uses are the ones from the federal military.

Click to expand...

Firstly, in reading the act, I see nothing that describes drills with live fire exercises. It is possible that I missed it, so please post the section. Secondly, if that IS the case, it would then fall under the jurisdication of the military. Now, if you want to make this into a military argument, I would then say that you are construing the 2nd Amendment to ONLY allow for military use of guns. Now, if you do NOT want to consider the militia part of the military (and I would disagree with you, there) then the Act itself causes regulation of gun use, completely legal under the 2nd Amendment which does not address usage. So, no matter how you look at this, there is nothing in the Militia Act that counters my argument.

Chuz Life said:

What you are not recognizing is the fact that this is not a true conversion of a gun.

It's still a semi-auto in every sense of the word.

It's almost as fast as a full auto.

But because it still requires a fresh trigger pull for every round fired,... it's only a semi-auto.

And that goes for any court and any jurisdiction.

Click to expand...

No, I understand this, but in jurisdictions where a case has a verdict rendered that makes it legal to use then the BATFE regulations take over which says that such things are illegal due to the failure to pay for the tax to own a full auto weapon.

The_Patriot said:

No, I understand this, but in jurisdictions where a case has a verdict rendered that makes it legal to use then the BATFE regulations take over which says that such things are illegal due to the failure to pay for the tax to own a full auto weapon.

Click to expand...

IT'S NOT FULL AUTO!

How many times do I have to remind you?

READ THIS.

The_Patriot said:

You're ignoring the part of the definition for arms which states, "To be in arms, to be in a state of hostility, or in a military life." Hostility is defined as, "The state of war between nations or states; the actions of an open enemy; aggression; attacks of an enemy. These secret enmities broke out in hostilities." Ergo, under the strictest definition the Second Amendment encompasses the actual use of said weapons, unless you're saying that no one fires any weapons during a war...

All definitions are compliments of Webster's 1828 Dictionary since it's the closest dictionary I can find online to when the Constitution of the United States was written.

Click to expand...

I see that, and thank you for the defintions. Doesn't counter my argument. It's not about what one interprets or what one says is implied. It is what is written. Your definitions take far too many leaps of implication. From a literalist standpoint, the right to keep and bear arms provides no right to fire them. This is why the government can restrict usage only, based on where, why, what, and how.

Goobieman said:

These regulations, and their constitutionality, have nothing to do with your absurd argument. These things are allowed to be regulated by the government because of some constitutional loophole, but because the regulations in question cover thngs that exist wholly outside the right to arms itself.

It is illegal to fire a gun up in the air within city limits not because of your abusurd loophole but because it wantonly endangers others. Like yelling fire in a theater, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

Similarly, it is illegal to commit murder with a gun not because of your abusurd loophole but because it directly causes harm to others. Like engaging in slander and libel, you have no right to endanger others in such a way, and so said restriction does not violate the 2nd.

I defy you to definitively ciite -any- restiction n the right to arms that is based on your silliness.

Click to expand...

I defy you to prove that my position is not logical and fits in the literal definition of the 2nd Amendment. Thus far, you haven't even come close. All you've done is calim it's silly, but have done nothing to demonstrate that, paradoxically demonstrating the silliness of YOUR position. What you say above is completely plausable, also. However, you have yet to prove my position inaccurate, without the necessity of veering from an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. Come on Goobie. This is supposed to be YOUR topic. I'll tell you quite honestly, I've learned a lot about the 2nd Amendment from you over the years... you and Turtle have altered my position to full support of it. So, let's see if you can combat my position.

CaptainCourtesy said:

Firstly, in reading the act, I see nothing that describes drills with live fire exercises. It is possible that I missed it, so please post the section. Secondly, if that IS the case, it would then fall under the jurisdication of the military. Now, if you want to make this into a military argument, I would then say that you are construing the 2nd Amendment to ONLY allow for military use of guns. Now, if you do NOT want to consider the militia part of the military (and I would disagree with you, there) then the Act itself causes regulation of gun use, completely legal under the 2nd Amendment which does not address usage. So, no matter how you look at this, there is nothing in the Militia Act that counters my argument.

Click to expand...

I refer you to Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States written by Baron von Stuben that was the discipline prescribed under the act of Congress passed on March 29, 1779. The act was repassed as the Uniform Militia Act in 1792 and required Stuben's book to be used. As such, on pages 16-30 of Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States presents the proper method of firing a weapon as well as the loading of said weapon.

The argument has nothing to do with the military since that is covered under Article I Section VIII Clause XIV which states, "To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;" The militia is a separate and distinct organization from the standing military. As I said, under the definitions of the words used in the Second Amendment it does include firing of said weapons.

Chuz Life said:

IT'S NOT FULL AUTO!

How many times do I have to remind you?

READ THIS.

Click to expand...

I think you're getting a little bent out of shape over this. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm agreeing with you, in fact, but positing the judicial boundries of those rulings that allow them to be used legally. It does not change the fact that what is legal in the 9th Circuit is illegal in the 7th Circuit.

CaptainCourtesy said:

I see that, and thank you for the defintions. Doesn't counter my argument. It's not about what one interprets or what one says is implied. It is what is written. Your definitions take far too many leaps of implication. From a literalist standpoint, the right to keep and bear arms provides no right to fire them. This is why the government can restrict usage only, based on where, why, what, and how.

Click to expand...

Oh god,.. I'm entering a pissing match with CC.

(someone stop him,... cries the voice in my head)

CC,... can you please explain to me what good it does to have a Constitutional "Right to keep and bear arms" against a government (in the event that it ever becomes a tyranny),..... and included in that Constitutional right is the caviot that the very government you have a right to bear arms against,.... has the ultimate say in how you use the arms you have?

Good gawd,... think man.

The_Patriot said:

I think you're getting a little bent out of shape over this. I'm not saying you're wrong and I'm right. I'm agreeing with you, in fact, but positing the judicial boundries of those rulings that allow them to be used legally. It does not change the fact that what is legal in the 9th Circuit is illegal in the 7th Circuit.

Click to expand...

It would help if you would clarify where it is you feel bumpfire mechanisms are and are not currently legal.