Select-fire

[maestro pistolero]

I understand that timing is everything, and that now is not the time, but I'd like to share some thoughts on the matter, perhaps plant a seed or two.

For the record, I believe Richard Hamblen's challenge is poorly timed, ill-conceived and for those reasons, will only do more harm than good at this time. I don't know the whole history of his case, and don't know whether he availed himself of any legal means to acquire or build those weapons through the state.

Heller:
Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase ‘part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. . . . 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. . .

This reading seems quite a bit of a stretch. Since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machine guns . . . might be unconstitutional, it is a startling reading? Startling is how this passage turned the plain language on it's head.

And from the verdict against Hamblen himself:

In United States v. Fincher, 538 F.3d 868, 873-74 (8th Cir. 2008), the Eighth Circuit held that the defendant’s possession of a machine gun was not protected by the Second Amendment under Heller: “Machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.”


I find it disconcerting if any weapon not in common use may be considered dangerous and unusual.

Those weapons that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes include AR15s, and lots of them. Select-fire is only uncommon because they were recently (1986) closed to registration, not because they were banned or because they weren't typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

It's like the DC handgun ban: "You have to register your handguns, but we refuse to register them after a certain date"

The ongoing history of full-auto ownership in this country is that any law abiding citizen may have them with a background check and a tax certificate. That, in fact, is still true today. So we have a legal conundrum, where it is lawful and constitutional to own a type of weapon, but the government has passed laws which make them impossible to own or afford for the average person, and illegal to buy new. This is an infringement. Full auto is not illegal, only regulated. And now nearly regulated out of existence for just about everybody, because the closed registration has driven the market value through the roof.

Given the primary and only originally stated purpose of the Second Amendment (the first clause) it is impossible to seriously argue that the primary arm of the national guard and the four branches of the military shouldn't be the most protected weapon in the land.

From Heller:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause.

. . . which it most certainly is not.
The conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
At the time of our founding, there was essentially no difference in the type of weapons found on a farm and those found in the military. The primary purpose of any weapon has always been to equalize the disparity of power between individuals and between groups. To upset that balancing effect by prohibiting arms to citizens that are freely available to the government, is to eviscerate the amendment for the exact purpose for which it was intended. Of course, more dangerous and unusual weapons emerged, such as tanks, and bombers, making that disparity unavoidable in modern times. Along the continuum of dangerous and unusual weapons, no small arm, even select-fire rifles, begins to rise to the same level of danger of tanks, missiles, bombers, and the like.

But, as we have painfully witnessed in more than one or two wars, that sophisticated weaponry only goes so far in a conflict, and each conflict inevitably digresses into primarily close combat, which is usually where the campaign is actually won or lost. And the government would be highly reluctant to unleash such WMD upon it's own infrastructure, let alone it's own citizens.

For these reasons, I submit that small arms, as an entire category of privately borne weapons should be off the table as far as any outright or effective ban.

It would seem reasonable, given the relatively indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present, that there may be an elevated level of training, screening, and regulation required beyond that required for more common defensive weapons. (edit to say: . . . beyond that required for semiautomatic weapons, Thanks, 44AMP)

But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.

[44 AMP]

but I just have to pick....

agreed, circular logic;
machine guns are not common because the govt restricts them.
Because they are not common, the govt has a right to restrict them.

Going back to the example of the Revolution, and the years shortly afterward, one can find privately owned cannon, and even warships.
re: Letters of Marque

you can own artillery, without restrictions. What you cannot own is the ammunition. You can own a tank, or a bomber (if you have the money). Again, what is restricted is the explosive ordnance. (and the machine guns)

Some people like to take this part of the reasoning to the ridiculous extreme adding nuclear weapons. After all, they are arms too, right?

The broadest libertarian view of that argument would have to be, yes, the government does not have the authority to prohibit you from owning them. This agreement automatically creates horror amongst even the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters, after all, your talkin NUKES!

But it ought to be the way things are, if we were a truly free society. The govt doesn't need (and shouldn't have) a law that says you are prohibited from owning a nuke. If you could build one, using "special nuclear material" that you dug up in your back yard, you should have the legal right to own it. And that's the only way you could own one, without violating dozens of other existing laws. No need for a ban, when they are all property of the govt, and have never been allowed for sale. If you got one, it is stolen, so the law covers that. No ban needed. Buy one overseas? Even legally (as if that was possible?) Law says no import. Already covered, no ban law needed. Do you see my point here? Seems like no body ever looks that far, all they see is NUKE and of course we need laws saying people can't own them. Its already covered.

Like machineguns. Don't shoot people for fun and profit, there's no problem. Do shoot people for fun and profit, well, we already have laws saying you can't do that, and have had for centuries.

It would seem reasonable, given the relatively indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present, that there may be an elevated level of training, screening, and regulation required beyond that required for more common defensive weapons.


ok, this one bothers me a little. Not that I disagree with the idea that people ought to have some training on the things they own, or that the govt shouldn't screen/regulate ownership of firearms to some degree (we're never going to get that undone) but the phrasing....

a) "reasonable" - a word that in my half century of watching these things, always seems to precede us getting shafted. granted, its a small thing, but even small things have weight.

b) "relatively indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present," I don't see this as an accurate statement. It is an emotional value judgement. How is the potential carnage of someone dumping 30 rnds pulling and holding the trigger be worse than them doing the same thing pulling the trigger 30 times as fast as they can? And I doubt we would see a rash of belt fed drive bys either.

c) "beyond that required for more common defensive weapons. " OK, we're back to the circular logic again. They aren't common because we regulate them tightly, so we have to regulate them tightly because they aren't common!

But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.

Agreed. Completely. An excellent summation of the kind of things I have been saying since the govt put an M16A1 in my hands, to defend truth, justice, the American way, and incidentally enforce the policy decisions of the administration. If there is any gun that should be completely unrestricted for citizens to own, it is the one the govt forces citizens to use to carry out its will, which is, under our system supposed to be, the will of the people.

note: this whole thing is meant to be constructive, but its late, and I'm in rant mode, so if it comes off as critical, I do apologize. Bite me.

[divemedic]

That, and I cannot believe that the FFs meant to apply the 2A only to weapons in use at the time the BOA was ratified. If that were the case, the only legal guns would be muzzle loaders. IMO, this argument is merely an extension of the "the 2A only applies to muzzle loaders, because that was all the FFs knew"

If that is the case, then can we say that since TV stations are not in common use (there are fewer TV stations in the US than MGs) so you do not have freedom of speech

[Latex Ducky]

I like Switzerland's model...

If Switzerland ever got invaded, the invaders are in for a helluva fight.

[maestro pistolero]

b) "relatively indiscriminate threat risk that fully automatic weapons present," I don't see this as an accurate statement. It is an emotional value judgement. How is the potential carnage of someone dumping 30 rnds pulling and holding the trigger be worse than them doing the same thing pulling the trigger 30 times as fast as they can? And I doubt we would see a rash of belt fed drive bys either.

My point is just that FA's harder to control, with a greater possibility that the rounds end up in unintended targets.

c) "beyond that required for more common defensive weapons. " OK, we're back to the circular logic again. They aren't common because we regulate them tightly, so we have to regulate them tightly because they aren't common!
You're right. Bad choice of terms, How about . . . "beyond that required for semi automatic weapons. "

[csmsss]

It's long since due for that disgraceful relic of jurisprudence (U.S. v. Miller) to come crashing down. Whether the 1934 NFA is constitutional or not, I cannot say, but the 1939 SCOTUS decision affirming it is judicial legerdemain at its worst.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Here is Mr. Hamblen's explanation of what he is trying to do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTTYyO_8N9M

Based on that, I fear Mr. Hamblen is on shaky ground. In short, Mr Hamblen, a member of the volunteer Tennessee State Guard sought to arm those in his unit with full auto weapons because he felt they were inadequately armed. The mission of the Tennessee State Guard on their website is:
The purpose of the Tennessee State Guard is to provide a professional complement of personnel to support the State mission of the Tennessee National Guard, by assisting the Tennessee Army National Guard as a force multiplier, and at the direction of the Adjutant General, to assist civil authorities with disaster relief, humanitarian causes, ceremonial service, religious and medical support for the well being and safety of the citizenry of Tennessee.

So, from reading that I see a couple of problems with his position. First, I see nothing about this state guard being an armed force as Mr. Hamblen alleges, and furthermore they operate at the direction (read authority) of the Adjutant General.

If the AG felt that the need to arm them beyond what they already had then he would do so. That decision is not up to Mr. Hamblen to make as a subordinate commander. I would liken that prohibition to the one that active duty military have about carrying personally owned weapons during deployments.

So, as a TN Guard member I believe Mr. Hamblen exceeded his authority to equip his "troops" with privately owned weapons and such authority could only rest with the Governor and AG.

Now to maestro pistolero and 44 AMP's circular logic argument. If you are saying that full auto weapons were in common use (pre-NFA) by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes and that was indeed true then you might have a point as to the argument being circular. However, I do not believe and see no evidence that they ever were in "common use" by anybody other than the military and they were restricted in 1934 because those outside the military who did commonly use them were criminals engaged in criminal activity. Because of our more affluent society today and their limited availability they are in greater demand but IMO mostly by gun enthusiasts and hobbyists.

I believe that when FA was unrestricted prior to 1934 by the government they were never in "common use" by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.

But to outright or effectively ban the exact weapon which the government has chosen defend our nation at home and abroad, and which the government freely puts into the hands of every 18 year old capable of signing his or her name, seems to me completely and monumentally antithetical to the purpose, intent, and deepest meaning of the Second Amendment, and such, should be completely taken off the table as a policy choice.

I disagree. I think Heller decoupled the supposed antigun relationship between private ownership of firearms from service in the militia (which no longer exists). Federal and State governments may indeed constitutionally restrict weapons that civilians may own if those restrictions pass court muster and the NFA has.

[Al Norris]

Tennessee, you may want to research a bit more, on the "common use by private citizens" mantra. In footnote 57 of Professor O'Shea's "THE RIGHT TO DEFENSIVE ARMS AFTER DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER" (3/2009 West Virginia Law Review; SSRN-id1287405)

18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (2000). Somewhat in excess of 100,000 legally transferable machine guns remain in circulation. See Proposed Legislation to Modify the 1968 Gun Control Act: Hearings Before the House Judiciary Committee, 99th Cong., 1165 (1987) (testimony of Stephen E. Higgins, Director, U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)(estimating around 118,000 registered machine guns in BATF’s files). This fixed pool consists of the weapons that were properly registered pursuant to the National Firearms Act of 1934, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq., prior to the effective date of the ban provision, 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), on May 19, 1986.

So in 1986, when the NFA registry was frozen, there were 118,000 machine guns registered. But by 2000, that estimate had dropped to 100,000 machine guns.

While this may not be viewed as prolific, one also must take into account the beginnings of the 1934 NFA.

How many $10 to $20 firearms could you afford, if there was a $200 tax imposed upon them? Translated into today's monetary terms, an $800 rifle would cost you $3800 ($200 tax adjusted for inflation). How many could the average person afford? However, since the tax was never adjusted, how many people would be able to afford a $1000 - $1400 rifle? I would speculate, more than just 1 or 3. :D

Consider also that as of 1937, about 16,000 short-barreled rifles and shotguns, 18,000 machine guns, and 700 silencers were registered under the NFA. "Urges Firearms Act to Include All Kinds," New York Times, May 5, 1937, at 13.

So while the $200 tax was prohibitive, it was by no means a ban. With the registry now closed and the number of full-auto guns in decline, it most definitely is a ban, even though ownership is still lawful.

That is the crux of the circular argument.

No one, not you, not the Government, can say with any credibility that NFA firearms are not in common use, because the argument was foreclosed in 1934.


In footnote 188, the Professor O'Shea obtained estimates from the ATF ( http://www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/afmer/afmer2006.pdf ) that upwards of 120,000 AR-15 military pattern firearms are produced and sold in America, today. Certainly, such military pattern firearms are in common use and thus protected under Heller.

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.

[Yellowfin]

A big reason that select fire arms weren't in as common use in 1934 as they could be today was that they were rare, new, specialized, and expensive for the time. They never got the chance. The machine gun was invented by Hiram Maxim just before WWI, so at best machine guns of any form had 20 years before the NFA to exist, not good odds compared to other firearm designs which had much longer and were cheaper to manufacture: by comparison the lever action rifle had 70 years, the bolt action rifle had maybe 40, and both of those cost one sixth to one tenth as much as a Thompson and weighed half as much. A 1918 BAR weighed three times as much as many rifles of then and certainly compared to now. Also take into consideration that semiautomatic rifles were also barely in existence as well and not well thought of for reliability and robustness of design. Had more designs been in implementation that were successful and practical, many more could have been select fire and probably would have been. If they'd had AR15's back then I'd bet at least a quarter of them would have been M16's if not half. Even now we see that semiauto rifles suitable for select fire unfortunately weren't anywhere near as common prior to May 1986 as they are now, otherwise the registry of transferrable full autos would probably have ten times as many as it does.

As for the military and criminal use being predominant, the above shows that it's an unfair comparison, and there's actually more to it than that. In point of fact there was some use of full auto by civilians, and were it not for the above problems it would have certainly been done more. Thompson adds depicted and suggested use by ranchers, bank and railroad guards, and couriers, and those who either as individuals or through their employers could afford them did--again, not many, and 1929-1934's economic conditions significantly decreased the number who could. Ernest Hemingway for one kept one on his boat to defend against criminals and sharks. What we know of criminal use is because of the notoriety of the criminals, not the difference full auto made when using them versus semiauto or even simple pistols. There wasn't anything they did that couldn't have been done with other weapons, but rather the unusual nature, distinctive and recognizable appearance, and comparative rarity of what they used typecast the machinegun as a criminal's weapon of choice.

[maestro pistolero]

I disagree. I think Heller decoupled the supposed antigun relationship between private ownership of firearms from service in the militia (which no longer exists).

The court decoupled the the anti gun relationship, only in that the collective right argument was put out of it's long-suffering misery. But the stated purpose, the first clause, cannot be erased without a constitutional amendment. Whether the militia is dead or not, (I think dormant is a better word) the protected ability to raise one by means of having an armed populace is still very much alive until, and unless it is removed from the Bill of Rights by the process provided.
Federal and State governments may indeed constitutionally restrict weapons that civilians may own if those restrictions pass court muster and the NFA has.
And so did the DC handgun ban for 34 years.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Al, I think the term "in common use" is pretty self-explanatory to the layman. There may of course be legal definitions that arise from court cases but to me 118,000 out of 200 million calculates to not in common use.

The crux of the maestro pistolero's circular argument that I see is that for it to be true then FA weapons had to be in common use pre 1934. I don't thnk they were and so civilian rejection of them as a viable firearm for their use made the NFA possible to pass without objection except for Mr. Miller who was a criminal.

No one, not you, not the Government, can say with any credibility that NFA firearms are not in common use, because the argument was foreclosed in 1934.

And neither can you say they were. I think peripheral facts would lead us to believe they were not since records were not kept. For instance, the Auto-Ordnance Corporation (as Yellowfin notes) marketed them to ranchers for pest control:rolleyes:.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kingpowercinema/35177769/

The effort failed and the company was sold at Thompson's death. They were designed for military use, expensive and wasteful of ammo for civilian use. No good for hunting and overkill for civilian self defense. Auto-Ordinance's attempt to sell them on the civilian market was clearly a failure and I think that speaks to the "in common use"

But Yellowfin makes the case for me in his post above that they were never in common use because they were unsuitable (price, weight etc) for common civilian lawful use.

Now, if the registry you speak of were opened would these Full Auto weapons be owned by lots of folks? Maybe, but we don't know that anymore than we know they would buy rocket launchers if they were available.

In common use? You just can't argue one way or another.


Well sure you can argue:D but if FA had been in common use in 1934 as say the double barrelled shotgun, I expect the NFA not have passed. As I have aruged in the past FA has no suitability for civilian use and restricting ownership is not unconstitutional under Heller or current law.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

the protected ability [of the state]to raise one by means of having an armed populace is still very much alive until, and unless it is removed from the Bill of Rights by the process provided.

My bolding. And the state will decide how to arm them not the individual. The state controls the militia and will decide how or if it is formed and called.

The court in Heller found that the individual had the RTKBA apart from service in the militia. Meaning self defense. Scalia said But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right and that shows there were two reasons for the 2A. The militia and personal self defense which Dick Heller was being denied.

Heller, I think cuts both ways; the antis cannot use the militia part to limit the individual right by insisting that the RTKBA is only for militia service and the progunners cannot use the militia part to claim they cannot be restricted from possessing military weapons since they are not in common use by citizens for lawful purposes.

And so did the DC handgun ban for 34 years.

Apples and oranges, handguns are in common use and FA is not, however if you think that you can get the NFA overturned in court have at it. Good luck with that:rolleyes:

[maestro pistolero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
the protected ability [of the state]to raise one by means of having an armed populace is still very much alive until, and unless it is removed from the Bill of Rights by the process provided.
My bolding. And the state will decide how to arm them not the individual. The state controls the militia and will decide how or if it is formed and called.

I don't disagree with that. What I am saying the state cannot do is infringe on the ability of the citizenry to be armed, so that an effective militia may be raised at point when, and if it is needed. And, since the militia, whether dead or dormant, is still a stated purpose contained within the amendment, the type of weapons protected should obviously serve that purpose, first and foremost.
The court in Heller found that the individual had the RTKBA apart from service in the militia. Meaning self defense. Scalia said
Quote:
But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right
and that shows there were two reasons for the 2A. The militia and personal self defense which Dick Heller was being denied.
(Unquote)

Heller, I think cuts both ways; the antis cannot use the militia part to limit the individual right by insisting that the RTKBA is only for militia service and the progunners cannot use the militia part to claim they cannot be restricted from possessing military weapons.

That remains to be seen. The high court has not taken such a case since Miller, where they sort of backed in to the opposite conclusion, that SBS's weren't protected because they lacked a military purpose. There is a canyon of a difference between the court saying that the first clause isn't the only purpose for 2A, and the court saying that it is no longer a valid part of the amendment. In my opinion, they said no such thing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
And so did the DC handgun ban for 34 years.

TG:
Apples and oranges, handguns are in common use and FA is not, however if you think that you can get the NFA overturned in court have at it. Good luck with that
There is a time for everything, and now is not the time.
__________________

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What I am saying the state cannot do is infringe on the ability of the citizenry to be armed, so that an effective militia may be raised at point when, and if it is needed.

Minor point but the 2A is not incorporated and so does not apply to the states yet;).

Nowhere in the COTUS or the 2A in particular does it say the the militia must be armed by privately owned weapons brought by the members. That was the way they did it then but that is not a "right" today. See: U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).

Therefore, you cannot argue as Mr. Hamblen has that he can supply his own FA weapons for militia use. The state may restrict what civilians are armed with if they are not in common use or are dangerous and unusual.

court saying that it is no longer a valid part of the amendment. In my opinion, they said no such thing.

Never said they did. However, there is a canyon of difference between the RTKBA for personal self defense and the collective defense provided by a duly called up militia. There is where you lose your FA argument.

[maestro pistolero]

Therefore, you cannot argue as Mr. Hamblen has that he can supply his own FA weapons for militia use. The state may restrict what civilians are armed with if they are not in common use or are dangerous and unusual.
I wouldn't make that argument. The state would need to authorize it. That's where Hamblen shot off his manhood. If Montana, or some such state wished to authorize select fire weapons for their citizens under the authority of 2A, who would stop them, and under what authority?

Brings me to another question about incorporation. If militias are the purview of the states, and the 2nd protects the right to arm the people for state militias, how does the 2nd not apply to the states? (It may already apply in CA because the AG acknowledges it does)

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
court saying that it is no longer a valid part of the amendment. In my opinion, they said no such thing.
Never said they did. However, there is a canyon of difference between the RTKBA for personal self defense and the collective defense provided by a duly called up militia. There is where you lose your FA argument.

Yes, one was enumerated in a 2A court ruling (Heller), and the other in the amendment itself, 200 plus years ago. As to how that distinction pinpoints a loss of the FA argument, you're going to have to connect the dots for me there.

[Crosshair]

Of course the whole "Private citizens owning nukes" thing is a red herring.

How much does a nuke cost to build? $2 Million? $5 Million? 10 million?

Maintenance alone averages about $850,000 per warhead per year in the US arsenal, though I'm not sure if that includes the launch vehicle or not. Probably does.

So you have to have someone who has several million just to buy it and then a couple more million to just maintain it. Then we get to the question of who is going to sell you a Nuke? France or North Korea are the only places that come to mind and you might have trouble with North Korea. The US military certainly wouldn't sell you one. Sure you have a right to own one, but that doesn't mean they have to sell you one.

Then you have the aspect of safe use. If I want to own an RPG-7 and blast boulders at the abandoned quarry I can do that safely. Buy a TOW launcher and reduce junked cars to little pieces, that can be done safely too. Get a recoilless rifle and knock over pine trees, fine. Buy a crate of Claymores and take care of the gopher problem, PETA might have a problem with that. But how can you use a nuke safely and not harm anyone? Above ground is out for obvious reasons and there is no point for below ground since you don't get the pretty mushroom cloud. If you do dirrectly harm someone get ready to be sued to the poorhouse.

People either couldn't afford it, wouldn't want one, or would realize there are weapons that make a big boom that are far less hassle to own.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That's where Hamblen shot off his manhood.

YOW!:eek:;) 'ala Plaxico!

If Montana, or some such state wished to authorize select fire weapons for their citizens under the authority of 2A, who would stop them, and under what authority?

The state COULD do that! In fact here is a clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJCwIUZ2SAY

with Walter Dellinger who argued against Gura and Heller saying just that. Listen to what he says at 6:50 to 7:38. He and I would agree that if a state decided to create and arm a militia with M16s and issue them the US Government could not stop them from doing such. Heck they might be able to issue many other types of weapons too. And they might say we could keep them in our homes as well.

If militias are the purview of the states, and the 2nd protects the right to arm the people for state militias, how does the 2nd not apply to the states?

Because the SCOTUS has not yet recognized it as a fundamental individual right. Legal distinction.

As to how that distinction pinpoints a loss of the FA argument, you're going to have to connect the dots for me there.

Well, you have said it yourself. The right of a state to have a well-regulated militia and the right of an individual to keep and bear arms are uncoupled.

Just because a state has a right to arm, train and call up a militia does not give you the right to personally own any weapon you choose without restriction or authorization as a militia member by the state.

Heck the state can regulate what weapons you carry in or out of the militia for that matter. The state may arm it's militia with M-1 Garands and require the members to carry those and NOT M-16s. But my point is that a militia and it use and purpose does not dictate what the individual person owns viz-a-viz firearm type.

[raimius]

I wonder about this scenario:
1. The federal government loses the ability to defacto ban MGs due to state/individual rights (or some combination thereof).
2. Incorporation denies the ability of the state to do the same.

...just a thought.

[maestro pistolero]

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

Well, you have said it yourself. The right of a state to have a well-regulated militia and the right of an individual to keep and bear arms are uncoupled.

That's not what I am saying. I don't think they were ever actually coupled. Are you referring to this?
Yes, one was enumerated in a 2A court ruling (Heller), and the other in the amendment itself, 200 plus years ago.
Scalia drew his reasons for articulating the self-defense protection from the actual practice since common law. It's not uncoupled because it was never coupled, and it is all part of the same protected right. Self-protection, defense of hearth and home, and security of the free state. Me, my family and home, and my country. Three levels of the same thing.

The first clause stated the purpose, and the second described the right. They were never two rights or two purposes. It could be read as: "We all need security, therefore the people cannot be disarmed."

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. Those arms will so happen to be sufficient for security at the level of the self, and the hearth and home. And we're not that far from the standard now, except in some states that have AWBs. Three-round burst rifles are marginally more effective than what we can have right now. All I'm really saying is that the standard issued weapon of our citizen army is a very good place to draw the line in the sand.

Dellinger
Interesting commentary. Funny to watch him disparage the very collective rights argument that he made in Heller. I always suspected he didn't actually believe it. His extrapolation that, because the federal government may arm the Militia, that they may well also disarm it seems more than a bit stretchy. Certainly they could take back issued firearms. But in the context of the discussion, disarm could mean prohibit ownership. Perhaps that not what he meant.

Regards, TG

-MP

[greensteelforge]

The assumption that this is a politically bad time to broach the second amendment issue of controlled weapons is pretty telling. This issue will never be seriously addressed until we remove political affiliation from the equation. By assigning an issue to a single party, we make an election year tool of it. Politicians are generally very responsive to constituents who contact them directly, respectfully, and are able to articulate their argument. It is when we go into what should be a discussion with a combative attitude that we perpetuate the problems we are trying to solve. We will never, and I mean NEVER resolve this issue as a single party issue. These are American rights, and a constitution that belongs to us all. If we were to subdue one side of a two party system, democracy would be dead. Talk directly to your leaders, regardless of party, or voting record, and you will be surprised. Remind them that government should not be a mechanism for "nerfing" the society, but instead, should be a mechanism for promoting a society that allows us to live in accordance with our own ethical guide while preventing the legislation of one school of thought or another into national policy, or law.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

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

I'll take it!:D

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? :D

[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:cool:

[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.:D

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.

[zukiphile]

Arguing that something a hundred thousand people still have three decades after further supply was banned seems like a dead end. I don't know that there are a 100,000 purple italian silk ties in the country, but that would not make such a thing rare. The term "common" really begs the question, "Common for what?".

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.


That can't be the problem with the argument, since that isn't the argument.

The OP's point is that the government shouldn't be able to prohibit an item as uncommon where it is the government's act that produces the uncommon quality of the item. That reasoning doesn't hinge on the item once having been common. The reasoning he critiques still rests on a fallacy of circular reasoning, since that reasoning begs the question of why it is currently less common than it might have been otherwise.

[maestro pistolero]

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 . . .

Point taken. But again, at the founding, those commonly borne weapons would have been well-matched with those of any potential adversary. As soon as the weapons fail that test, the amendment will have been undermined.

You have said yourself that the state would likely supply weapons should it call forth a militia. You may be right, but why would that be? Could it be that that weapons that would be provided by the citizens would not be up to the task, that ammunition supply would be a chaotic prospect, and that it would be impossible to well-regulated (train, standardize, etc) a militia so armed? Oops, an unregulated militia? Wouldn't that run afoul of the amendment?

Clearly the Amendment intended for the people to have (keep) and have at-the-ready (bear) the sorts of arms that would be suitable for service. Not that they should wait for the government to hand them out. Today, that would be a long, long wait.

To abandon for a moment the select-fire argument, the standardization of training, arms and ammo could be accomplished with commonly held semi-auto AR15s, provided the chambering was 5.56 and not .223, except in California, and a few other recalcitrant, 2A-challenged states.

It might be well enough if we could count on the issue of the restriction of select-fire being the only departure from the military versions of these weapons that was ever to be required, but CA and others have shown that incremental, relentless bites out 2A rights will never end, and can only result in choking any remaining life out of an already eviscerated 2A.

So, TG, the line in the sand? The bright line, as you say. Where to put it, and how to keep it there?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Great discussion.

First of all the way the states chose to arm their militia is not IMO what the 2A was about. What I mean is that the idea that militia would only be armed by citizen's bringing their own weapons to the fight is not enshrined in the 2A. The states chose that method in the 1700s because guns were expensive, and most everybody had them anyway and there was great commonality with what was used on the battlefield.

For warfare at that time it made sense but the 2A did not say that was the only way the state could do it. The states may equally choose not to use that method and supply a militia they called up with weapons the state provided. Even back then that was done to a limited degree in some states where those in larger towns didn't own a gun.

Today it would make much more sense logistically were a state to raise and form a militia to supply the arms and equipment. Commonality of ammo, spare parts etc.

Also, keep in mind how the militia functioned. My readings show they were organized, trained, had leaders and answered to the government. This is contrary to what some on TFL believe and they mistakenly feel a militia is merely a group of citizens who happen to own guns.

I wouldn't see a state just raising a militia pell mell with no organization, training or coherence and then trying to issue weapons. I would see something much more deliberate IMO. Of course many of the Founding Fathers turned away from the republican ideal of a citizens militia after they found out they didn't work too well.

So, TG, the line in the sand? The bright line, as you say. Where to put it, and how to keep it there?

I would draw the line at FA. IMO any reasoned reading of Scalia's comments on Miller in the Heller case show that the "in common use" standard refers to civilian use for civilian needs (personal self defense, hunting and sport). Others may disagree but I think they are reaching.

However, if a state so chose to raise a militia, they could do so thru legislation and equip their force with whatever small arms they wished OR they could authorize legitimate members to provide them privately and I don't think the BATFE would be able to successfully prosecute them for violating the NFA since at that point the weapons would be property of and related to the recognized state militia. Maybe that is a possbility. Montana I'm thinking?:rolleyes:

A real irony here for me in these arguments is how the polar opposites politically argue the same issue.

The antigunners want the 2A to be coupled with service in the militia so they can ban privately owned guns because the militia is defunct.

Some progunners want to own military weaponry and so they try to link the militia service with the individual right as well! Kind of funny to me.

Heller decoupled the 2A properly in my opinion. States have a right to raise and arm their militias if they choose and the individual has the right to private ownership of firearms for self-defense. Further firearms not in common use by civilians can be restricted or banned by the state.

Caveat; I am making no defense of CA gun control laws much of which which I disagree with (and SCOTUS may too after incorporation) nor am I defending FOPA 1986 Hughes Amendment which some argue is a de facto ban on FA.

[zukiphile]

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.



— Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I note the following because I know it has been brought to TG's attention, and to ignore those facts obscures the issue.

My readings show they were organized, trained, had leaders and answered to the government.

Those readings only pertain to the organised militia, not the militia.

The militia is a stautorily defined population. Its definition does not include organisation, training, leadership or fealty to government.

I wouldn't see a state just raising a militia pell mell with no organization, training or coherence and then trying to issue weapons.

Since the militia pre-exists, the state doesn't raise it in the sense a nation might raise (or create) an army.

IMO any reasoned reading of Scalia's comments on Miller in the Heller case show that the "in common use" standard refers to civilian use for civilian needs (personal self defense, hunting and sport). Others may disagree but I think they are reaching.


You are entitled to your opinion on both counts, however I note that if you need to imply terms into Scalia's opinion that he chose not to insert himself, you may have misconstrued his opinion.

Of course many of the Founding Fathers turned away from the republican ideal of a citizens militia after they found out they didn't work too well.

While the War of 1812 showed that the US militia system was no match for a numerically inferior brit force, and your preference for a modern, highly ordered national defense seems a sup[erior method of national defense, neither of those developments subsequent to adoption of the 2d Am. can reasonably restrict the prior right.

While one fellow may have ideas about national defense, another about freedom of speech and assembly, and another about the limits of reasonable search and seizure, the value and heft of civil rights are eroded if they are effectively subject to amendment or disregard simply becuase someone thought he had a better idea about government and peoples' rights.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This thread is old but I came across this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df7CSnVAfKo&feature=related and thought he gave a good synopsis on where law is now. Watch from about 4:24 to 6:54.

[Yellowfin]

Gura has to take the position he has because currently he is presenting cases before the Supreme Court and will have several more in the future. He doesn't want to scare any judges who would be on the fence that he may need to rule our way.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I don't know Gura but I think he is a man of his word and would not so falsely posture in this type of forum. I think he is telling it like he sees it to those who are interested. What he argues to the court is yet another thing.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Interesting read folks, but what it boils down to is this:

Not enough people are intersted in NFA items to change the laws. We seem to forget that we are the government, electing people to represent us. Get enough citizens interested in owning an NFA weapon, and we can make some changes. Until then, all the other arguments don't really matter.

[maestro pistolero]

Good find, TG. Thanks for that.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I also like the way he dealt with the circular issue with what "in common use" means and how they would deal with that in legal argument.

Gura represents to me the real power of the gun rights movement today in that he (and many others) is a libertarian and not a traditional right winger. By making the tent bigger we get stronger.

[Yellowfin]

Remington's acquisition of Advanced Armament may be a big step towards us finally busting the NFA by getting more people aware of suppressor ownership and then by extension the rest of title 2 items. I'd say that since the $200 tax was such a significant economic barrier for so long and the complication and rarity of Class 3 dealers and purchasing procedure being obscure and complicated there was and is a sort of Iron Curtain that walled off the general gun owning public from them. Of course this is no accident as the laws regarding NFA items are purposefully made to be a deterrent. Even in 1986, to deal with the comparatively small number of MG's that made it onto the registry before the closing, $200 was more money than the average person would like to give up if they felt they didn't really have to and again if they knew they could and if they knew how to do it and who to buy from. I'd venture a very large part of why the public is so skeptical and fearful and therefore averse to MG's and suppressors (and likely don't know a thing about SBR's and AOW's other than perhaps it doesn't look like what they have) is that their information is severely limited by lack of experience and positive exposure due to the mechanism of the NFA leading them to believe they are totally illegal and should be because they have been removed from their world.

If Remington and AAC go about this the way the way they seem to indicate they will, the Iron Curtain will come down.

[gyvel]

The machine gun was invented by Hiram Maxim just before WWI, so at best machine guns of any form had 20 years before the NFA to exist,

LMAO!!

Wow! Where did you get that gem of misinformation??? Hiram Maxim invented a successful toggle operated machine gun ca. 1885. His machine guns were being used to good advantage by the British by the mid 1890's.

John M. Browning successfully patented a gas operated machine gun in the 1890's which was adopted by the U.S. armed forces, and manufactured by Colt as the M1895. It's nickname was the "potato digger." Remember? It was used in the Spanish American War.

By the advent of WWI, there were many successful machine gun designs in use by the various world powers, including Various Maxim designs, Schwarzlose M .07, Benet Mercie (Hotchkiss M1909), Lewis Gun (1911), etc. The Germans introduced the concept of the submachine gun in the form of the Bergmann MP-18 during WWI.

Machine gun use was well-known and firmly established before the 20th century, and well before WWI.

Get your facts straight.

[gyvel]

In response to the OP, I read some years back that, when Congress was debating the GCA's of '34 and '35, many members were of the opinion that full automatic weapons were particularly suited for militia purposes.

Those acts were passed in a hysterical (and typical Democrat's) response to the vastly exaggerated 1920's-1930's Prohibition gangster violence that was sensationalized in the news media. In one sense, Roosevelt being the patrician that he was, it was enacted for much the same reasons that the NYC Sullivan Laws were enacted, i.e. to keep weapons out of the hands of the Italians.

[Yellowfin]

The NFA was rationalized by hysterical response to the gangsters of Prohibition. It is vastly more probable that FDR was anticipating a revolt against federal economic meddling that was prolonging the Depression.

[armsmaster270]

Quote:
The purpose of the Tennessee State Guard is to provide a professional complement of personnel to support the State mission of the Tennessee National Guard, by assisting the Tennessee Army National Guard as a force multiplier, and at the direction of the Adjutant General, to assist civil authorities with disaster relief, humanitarian causes, ceremonial service, religious and medical support for the well being and safety of the citizenry of Tennessee.


Even when the California National Guard was mobilized for the Rodney King Riots their M-16's were converted to semi Auto by the use of a metal block installed to keep the selector from going to full auto position.

[Crosshair]

The NFA was rationalized by hysterical response to the gangsters of Prohibition. It is vastly more probable that FDR was anticipating a revolt against federal economic meddling that was prolonging the Depression.
Look at how many new proposed guns laws are trying to be rationalized by pointing to the crime and violence problem we have with Prohibition 2.0. Of course that crime and violence happens for the same reason that Budweiser distributors don't get into shootouts over territory today, the politicians don't want to admit that.

[ADB]

The NFA was rationalized by hysterical response to the gangsters of Prohibition. It is vastly more probable that FDR was anticipating a revolt against federal economic meddling that was prolonging the Depression.

Dude, seriously: A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication by people who don't like what FDR did with labor laws and generally disapprove of government in the whole.

[fiddletown]

...A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication...Well Milton Friedman has offered a different perspective, but that really has nothing to do with the NFA.

[tyme]

Some people like to take this part of the reasoning to the ridiculous extreme adding nuclear weapons. After all, they are arms too, right?

The broadest libertarian view of that argument would have to be, yes, the government does not have the authority to prohibit you from owning them. This agreement automatically creates horror amongst even the strongest 2nd Amendment supporters, after all, your talkin NUKES!

But it ought to be the way things are, if we were a truly free society. The govt doesn't need (and shouldn't have) a law that says you are prohibited from owning a nuke. If you could build one, using "special nuclear material" that you dug up in your back yard, you should have the legal right to own it.

The federal government is SUPPOSED to be constitutionally restricted in its powers. There is no explicit constitutional power to restrict manufacture or ownership of nuclear weapons. So although I don't think private nuke ownership is necessarily a good idea, I agree with strict libertarians that it's a weak argument to say that the national defense power grants the fed.gov the power to restrict nuke ownership. That's the kind of slippery-slope expansionist reading of the constitution that allows the fed.gov to insinuate itself into education through the general welfare clause. Again, not something that necessarily has to be categorically evil, but I think these are all things that should be debated on the merits, and if people really want increased gov power in those areas, a constitutional amendment is in order.

I think as soon as WWII ended, there should have been a constitutional amendment proposed to deal with this question -- the if and how of restricting ownership of NBC weapons.

I don't think it is obvious that the status quo would remain the same if nuclear weapons were legal to privately own. That is, we don't currently have any idiots blowing up their most-hated cities with personally-owned nukes. I think a few people would probably avail themselves of the opportunity to own nukes. It's tough to say whether they would be smart, or whether that change in policy would have real and tragic consequences.

I think it is rational to worry about the consequences of private nuke ownership, and unless we become a space-faring species, I think the negative consequences of nuke legalization MIGHT outweigh the benefits of reduced government interference in private business. Not every rich or powerful person who might want to acquire a nuke is perfectly sane. Look at Ahmadinejad.

[maestro pistolero]

A very good argument could be made that even a government doesn't have a right to have a weapon that could kill millions of people in a single stroke.

[ADB]

I think it is rational to worry about the consequences of private nuke ownership, and unless we become a space-faring species, I think the negative consequences of nuke legalization MIGHT outweigh the benefits of reduced government interference in private business. Not every rich or powerful person who might want to acquire a nuke is perfectly sane. Look at Ahmadinejad.

Please tell me that you're grossly understating the situation for comic effect.

[maestro pistolero]

This has really ventured into the absurd. Please no more comments about privately held nukes. There have been a lot of valid, informed viewpoints brought forth, and this isn't one them. One more nuke post and I'll ask antipitas to pull the plug on this one.


Thanks.
OP

[Crosshair]

Dude, seriously: A history book would dispel that "economic meddling" idea right away. The idea that FDR somehow caused the Great Depression (despite it happening 3 years before he got elected) or prolonged it (when he pretty much kept the US alive and running) is a modern fabrication by people who don't like what FDR did with labor laws and generally disapprove of government in the whole.
Hoover got the Depression started. Hoover was no freemarket person despite what the government textbooks say. All FDR did was continue the failed policies of Hoover, only bigger, much like Obama is doing today with continuing Bush's failed policies.

[ADB]

Hoover got the Depression started. Hoover was no freemarket person despite what the government textbooks say. All FDR did was continue the failed policies of Hoover, only bigger, much like Obama is doing today with continuing Bush's failed policies.

Again... history book. Hoover and FDR were pretty much diametric opposites as far as government policy went.

Anyway, back on topic, personally I think that the question that I haven't noticed anyone ask here is, would current NFA weapons really be "common" if they weren't as heavily regulated? I'm not so sure.

I'm sure they're fun to shoot, but full auto fire really isn't useful for much other than fun and war. And with those rates of fire, it's an awfully expensive way of having fun. Beyond that, nobody's going hunting with a machine gun, and nobody's going to be doing home defense with it. So even assuming that the NFA wasn't as much of a barrier, how many people are going to pay however much of a premium is placed on a full-auto weapon over a semi-auto only version?

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see the NFA registry opened up again simply to make sure people have the choice, but I think that the assumption of full auto as being something that a lot more people would go for if it were available needs to be reexamined.

[divemedic]

But select fire gives you a choice. How many AR15's and M4gery rifles are sold each year? Given the popularity of those rifles, it is likely that select fire would be more widespread.

I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme. After all, when a new weapon is invented, it is by definition not in common use. Should we ever see the invention of the "plasma rifle in 40 watt range" it will be unobtainable, because it will not be in common use on the day it is invented, thus not protected by the COTUS. That to me is as absurd as saying that the First Amendment doesn't apply to blogs, because they were not in common use in 1986.

[Crosshair]

STOP talking about the Depression - I hated Economics 101.

[maestro pistolero]

Even in warfare, automatic fire has limited but specific uses such as area denial. There is a reason that the average soldier has, at most, 3 round burst.

So even assuming that the NFA wasn't as much of a barrier, how many people are going to pay however much of a premium is placed on a full-auto weapon over a semi-auto only version?

What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.

[Crosshair]

What premium? Except for NFA, select fire weapons would be no more expensive than semi-auto. Some parts are different, but not more expensive.
Actually, some select fire guns would be cheaper, like open bolt subguns. Much easier and simpler to make than semi-auto only guns.

[ADB]

Big Hint - if we say that a topic is off base - drop it.

GM


If the NFA registry were opened up tomorrow, and the paperwork streamlined, I guarantee you full-auto or select fire weapons would still be more expensive simply because they have more features. Besides which, the people who can afford to fire them on full auto more than a couple times for fun are the people for whom the extra cost doesn't matter as much. In other words, they'd be priced as a luxury item for a more upscale type of shooter than the average guy who's buying an AR-15.

For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.

[Crosshair]

For an analogy, let's look at mobile phones. The mid-range "smartphone" that I own didn't likely cost anything more to manufacture than some of the "dumb" conventional phones that you see at Radio Shack, but it's priced higher because it's expected to attract a different demographic, and therefore they can squeeze more money out of the buyers.
My SOT has mentioned that back in the early 80's before the registry closed, select fire M-16's tended to cost only a couple hundred dollars more than an AR-15. You could get an AR-15 for $700 and an M-16 for $900-1,000.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I reject the "common use" argument as the equivalent of the "Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme.

Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. However, I think it is a useful way to draw the bright line. Seems pretty clear to me that "in common use" means in common use for civilian purposes of self defense, sport and hunting. FA is not in that mix and never really was. The fact that there were only 118,000 legally registered out of hundreds of millions of other guns in 1986 when the tax and cost to own were not prohibitive shows that to be true. So, SCOTUS rules that the Second Amendment protects firearms in common use by civilians. The circular argument was handled by Gura in that clip and the NFA still stands.

that back in the early 80's before the registry closed,select fire M-16's tended to cost only a couple hundred dollars more than an AR-15. You could get an AR-15 for $700 and an M-16 for $900-1,000.

And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.

Even in warfare, automatic fire has limited but specific uses such as area denial.

Fire suppression is the other (anti-aircraft perhaps) and that is why I believe they (FA) are unsuitable for civilian self defense.

[Crosshair]

And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.
In the early 1980's the $200 NFA tax was the equivalent of over $400 today, dampening some interest in them. Information on acquiring and owning them was not as readily available as it is today. Recently I've seen an upswing in NFA ownership due to the gov debasing of our money whittling away at the NFA tax.

Saying full auto were never in common use in the 1980's is like saying that PCs weren't in common use in the 1980's. There simply wasn't much interest in them by most of the population at the time.

[tyme]

Apparently the SCOTUS disagrees. However, I think it is a useful way to draw the bright line. Seems pretty clear to me that "in common use" means in common use for civilian purposes of self defense, sport and hunting. FA is not in that mix and never really was.
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.

Suppose Congress had imposed a $2000 tax on computers in 1980, and today few people had them. Would you then support the notion that the 1st amendment doesn't protect blogs or websites today because computers wouldn't be in common use?

And look how few people legally owned [select-fire M16s]. More proof they were never in common use.

Most people obviously thought that select-fire wasn't worth the extra few hundred dollars. However, that does not prove that select-fire would be unpopular if it were unregulated. Even for people who spend a lot on guns, $200 is enough for many good C&R firearms. Why would anyone spend that extra $200 and wade through the paperwork unless they're genuine gun nuts who have lots of land or somewhere they can actually use full auto?

[maestro pistolero]

The common use test is overrated as binding. We know it is one measure that the Heller court brought out in dicta, and we also know it is subject to be undermined by the circular logic rationale. At best, it needs clarification.

As time goes on, new weapons will inevitably come into use, and may be in uncommon use for some time as they gain in usefulness and popularity.

As commonly understood, the circular logic inherent in the common use test could be used to preemptively end the introduction of new, modern self defense technology into the mainstream. Over time, this would be the future equivalent of freezing the type of weapons protected by the Second Amendment to swords, daggers, and muskets.

[divemedic]

So can we apply the common use test to the rest of the BOR?

Only common religions are protected, only popular speech is protected, your home can be searched for uncommon items without warrant.

Sorry, "common use" is a fiction that was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. If the people want to add "common use" to the COTUS, amend it, but having the court amend the constitution through a declaration is not the way it is supposed to work.

[zukiphile]

deleted

[csmsss]

Sorry, "common use" is a fiction that was invented by the SCOTUS out of thin air. If the people want to add "common use" to the COTUS, amend it, but having the court amend the constitution through a declaration is not the way it is supposed to work.Agreed. Problem is, this is what the SCOTUS does and has traditionally done for centuries - 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.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Comparing FA to computers and equating the SCOTUS criteria of "in common use" to other civil rights is silly. In Common Use is a reasonable criteria to determine what type of firearms are protected by the 2A. The real truth is what Gura spoke about. FA is not in common use not because of the NFA, cost or any other tax. They have never been in common use because they are unsuitable for civilian use. Period. This other stuff is wishful thinking by gun nuts. The courts will not support you on FA so the only route you can go is thru the legislature and if 70 percent of the good 'ole boys of Alabama don't think folk should own them, well...good luck. Oh and BTW the militia argument won't work. Mr Warin tried and failed in 1976.

[Hkmp5sd]

They have never been in common use because they are unsuitable for civilian use. Period.

In your opinion. I suitably use mine frequently.

[divemedic]

Comparing FA to computers and equating the SCOTUS criteria of "in common use" to other civil rights is silly. In Common Use is a reasonable criteria to determine what type of firearms are protected by the 2A. The real truth is what Gura spoke about. FA is not in common use not because of the NFA, cost or any other tax. They have never been in common use because they are unsuitable for civilian use. Period. This other stuff is wishful thinking by gun nuts. The courts will not support you on FA so the only route you can go is thru the legislature and if 70 percent of the good 'ole boys of Alabama don't think folk should own them, well...good luck. Oh and BTW the militia argument won't work. Mr Warin tried and failed in 1976.

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. Same goes today- any technological breakthroughs are not protected, since being new, they cannot be in common use. The 40 watt Plasma rifle is not protected by the 2A, as it has not been invented yet.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

in your opinion. I suitably use mine frequently.

Except the Congress, the Supreme Court and 70 percent of Alabama agrees with me :) So until you change our minds you will have to live with the NFA or go to Club Fed :)

[maestro pistolero]

Boy TG, not your usual cheerful self. Forgetting FA for the moment, do you care to chime in on the circular logic trap at all?

[alloy]

In common use or not...is pretty rediculous as a legal basis to ban something.

Ferrarris and LC Smith shotguns most likely will fall one day to the same fate if that's all it takes, kinda like because I said so.

[zukiphile]

Certainly what is "in common use" changes over time. I had a manual typewriter as a freshman and by the time I was a senior wew all did our theses on macintoshes. Families who used to drive station wagons changed to minivans. Things change. A liberty that is so inelastic that only its expression at any one point in history can be protected is no real enduring liberty at all.

Comparing FA to computers and equating the SCOTUS criteria of "in common use" to other civil rights is silly. In Common Use is a reasonable criteria to determine what type of firearms are protected by the 2A.

Asserting things as silly or reasonable doesn't demonstrate either. What cogent reasoning renders "in common use" a good limitation on 2d Am. rights, but not the rest of the bill of rights?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Boy TG, not your usual cheerful self.

Sorry, watching the Titans play this year does that to you:mad:

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.

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?

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.

The 40 watt Plasma rifle is not protected by the 2A,

It isn't a firearm either:p

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.

[raimius]

The 40 watt Plasma rifle is not protected by the 2A

It isn't a firearm either
So, do you claim the 2nd ONLY protects firearms?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, do you claim the 2nd ONLY protects firearms?

What do you think it protects?:confused:

[zukiphile]

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.


So Gura doesn't answer the problem of the circularity the logic of the "in common use" standard at all. Gura addresses a political feature of the issue, not the logical problem. In fact, when I've spoken to Gura, he has gone out of his way not to address logical extension of his argument beyond the case immediately at hand. That is a sound litigation strategy, but it is not a substitute for a more comprehensive, integrated and reasoned constitutional doctrine.

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.

There are fewer than 118,000 Mazda5 minivans in the US. This doesn't make them uncommon or mean than people do not care to own them.

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 issue is what firearms are protected by the 2A and the court is using a good criteria to determine that.


So you assert, but have yet to demonstrate.

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.

Did you really think he was presenting you with a choice?

Divemedic's example illustrates the problem with your position. "In common use" is necessarily tied to practice at a specific period in history. At the turn of the 19th century, repeating rifles were very uncommon. The logic of your position is that we could today be limited to single shot muzzle loading black powder rifles if only Congress had acted to outlaw any subsequent developments.

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?


No. It is an assumption, but it does not assume its own conclusion, as your position effectively does.

Most folk aren't in that camp.


Whether many agree with a poorly reasoned position doesn't make it any better reasoned.

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.


No. Since you are arguing that only the 2d Am. is subject to a common use limitation, he is extending your principle and asking you to explain it. That is not a strawman.

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.

Not that's something -- false appeal to authority, the fallacy of the excluded middle, and a strawman.

Asserting things as silly or reasonable doesn't demonstrate either. What cogent reasoning renders "in common use" a good limitation on 2d Am. rights, but not the rest of the bill of rights?

An inability to address this simple question may be a more powerful admission than you'd have intended.

[raimius]

What do you think it protects?
"Arms"
In application, I believe it protects small arms most rigidly.

The cavalry saber, halberd, and crossbow should be protected just as much by the 2nd Amendment as the Remington 700...in my opinion.

[Hkmp5sd]

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).


The NFA did in fact hinder ownership of full auto firearms. First, many locations could not get the CLEO signature needed to approve the paperwork. Very few knew of the Corporation/Trust method of bypassing the CLEO signature.


Also, many, many people were and still are under the impression that machineguns are illegal and never tried to acquire them. I grew up thinking they were illegal and didn't become aware of legal ownership until the 1986 took effect. Most Americans still believe the 1934 NFA bans the ownership of machineguns.

The same applies to sound suppressors. Something that is very common in some European countries and is considered the only polite way to shoot firearms is severely hindered here because of the NFA and the average American's belief that they are used only for assassinations. Most Americans believe there is an outright ban on suppressors because of the NFA.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

"Arms" In application, I believe it protects small arms most rigidly.

Interesting. Hasn't the court ruled that arms means firearms? I don't think it protects "plasma rifles" but then I wouldn't what the heck those are anyway.:)

The NFA did in fact hinder ownership of full auto firearms.

I still don't see that you have produced any evidence that the NFA caused those arms to not be in common use. You are speculating and I think it just as plausible that people didn't purchase them normally (except hobbyists and collectors) because they had no suitable purpose for them.

In order for your circular argument to work you would have to show (as did Gura with the handgun argument) that FA was in common use either before the NFA or the "86 FOPA and I don't think you or anyone else have done that. In fact the evidence shows otherwise. Imagine if the NFA had banned or restricted hunting rifles or normal length shotguns? It never would have passed.

The court routinely uses criteria to ascertain whether based on facts presented a law or rule violates the COTUS. Since the issue at hand is 2A (and not free speech, press etc) the criteria of "firearms in common use" today (not in 1789) is useful and since the NFA does not ban machineguns totally for private ownership you will be unlikely to win the agrument on legal constitutional gorunds simply because they cost a lot today.

[Hkmp5sd]

I still don't see that you have produced any evidence that the NFA caused those arms to not be in common use.

I haven't attempted to produce any evidence. However, long guns and handguns were in around for hundreds of years prior to the 1934 NFA and were very much "in common use". Machineguns on the other hand, especially machineguns such as the Thompson were around only a few years before being singled out as a "restricted" firearm. I would bet that thousands of WWII and Korean war vets would have Thompsons, Grease Guns, Stg43, and MG34s in their homes if you could find them at the local Ace Hardware beside the M1 Garands 03A3s and M1 carbines. Most significant improvements to the full auto line (Uzi, MP5, M16, AK47, etc) occured decades after the NFA was enacted. It is my position that had the NFA occurred in 1994 instead of 1934, full auto firearms would be much more "common" in the country. They would have been a more common item on shelves in gun stores. More people would have seen them and bought them.

If not for the NFA, how many of the thousands of pre-86 AR-15 clones in this country would have a 3 position selector switch?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

It is my position that had the NFA occurred in 1994 instead of 1934, full auto firearms would be much more "common" in the country. They would have been a more common item on shelves in gun stores. More people would have seen them and bought them.

I think mostly gun enthusiasts would have them and there are more of those in 2009 than there were in 1934 but even then they would not be many more than what they were before the FOPA '86.

I think FA was around long enough for folks to afford them and buy them if they wanted them for SD but they didn't do it because they are not suitable for civilian purposes even though they are fun albeit espensive to shoot.

This is hard for some gun enthusiasts to understand but Joe Citizen does not 1) believe he is a part of a militia 2) feel that a machine gun is a good idea for his own SD and 3) But does think that those who believe in 1 and 2 above are strange.

That is why FA is not in common use today nor will it be without the NFA (which ain't gonna happen thru the courts). So we agree to disagree.

[tyme]

This is hard for some gun enthusiasts to understand but Joe Citizen does not 1) believe he is a part of a militia 2) feel that a machine gun is a good idea for his own SD and 3) But does think that those who believe in 1 and 2 above are strange.
1) Semantic misunderstanding
2) Emotional reaction (MGs can be used semi-auto if that's more advantageous in a self-defense situation)
3) Fear of dissimilar cultures/groups (the Other)

That's a great start to a list of things NOT to base public policy on.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

1) Semantic misunderstanding

Obsolete idea

Emotional reaction (MGs can be used semi-auto if that's more advantageous in a self-defense situation)

Not crew served ones. Also, see Joe Horn

3) Fear of dissimilar cultures/groups (the Other)

Especially those with machine guns.

You forgot to add "sheeple".

Condescending attitudes towards those who don't wish to play militia/Rambo is a great way to lose the battle over public policy as well.

[ADB]

I don't think it protects "plasma rifles" but then I wouldn't what the heck those are anyway.

They're technobabble. In scientific terms saying "plasma rifle" makes about as much logical sense as "steam gun."

I think we're getting too hung up on the whole "common use" definition. That was, after all, a product of the Miller ruling. The original NFA rules didn't single out "uncommon" weapons, they singled out "dangerous or unusual" weapons, unusual referring to stuff like cane guns, disguised weapons, etcetera.

[gyvel]

And look how few people legally owned them. More proof they were never in common use.


But you still have to consider all the roadblocks, i.e. the $200.00 tax which, at one time, was prohibitve and is still a nuisance factor, the arbitrary behavior of many law enforcement officials who refuse to sign off on applications, and the social stigma attached to FA by the misinformed American Public, as reasons why "few people legally owned them."

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But you still have to consider all the roadblocks, i.e. the $200.00 tax which, at one time, was prohibitve and is still a nuisance factor, the arbitrary behavior of many law enforcement officials who refuse to sign off on applications, and the social stigma attached to FA by the misinformed American Public, as reasons why "few people legally owned them."

Speculation and no evidence to show reliably that the NFA "caused" FA to not be in common use. I don't think a court would buy it. I don't either. As stated before I thik the evidence points to the idea that most citizens don't view FA as a suitable SD weapon. That idea gets skewed on a gun forum with rabidly progun folk but being popular in gun circles does not make a type of firearm common to most of society.

[divemedic]

They're technobabble. In scientific terms saying "plasma rifle" makes about as much logical sense as "steam gun."

Of course they are. I am using them as an example of weapons that cannot possibly be in common use, because they have not yet been invented. The term is just as much technobabble as "machine gun" would have been in 1810.

If the American people had been using the "common use" argument in 1810, we would never have been allowed to own military weapons like:

the revolver (Which was not in common use in 1810, the patent being issued to Mr Colt in 1836)

lever action rifles (not invented until 1860)

pump action firearms- invented in 1882 (the Spencer shotgun)

Semi auto weapons? forget it.

The 2A states "keep and bear ARMS" not FIREARMS not "arms in common use" it says ARMS. That means guns, knives, pointy sticks, and even artillery. See, in those days people even owned WARSHIPS, with CANNONS. (Called privateers) after all, if private citizens could not own cannon owned warships, Congress would have no one to issue letters of marque to.

Speculation and no evidence to show reliably that the NFA "caused" FA to not be in common use. I don't think a court would buy it. I don't either.

You would be wrong (http://www.orl-llc.com/NFA-copy/chapter1.pdf). From the link:

As the legislative history of the law discloses, its underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms. Congress found these firearms to pose a significant crime problem because of their frequent use in crime, particularly the gangland crimes of that era such as the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. The $200 making and transfer taxes on most NFA firearms were considered quite severe and adequate to carry out Congress’ purpose to discourage or eliminate transactions in these firearms.

According to the legislative history of the NFA, the legal framework of the 1914 Act was chosen because the tax structure it embodied (supposedly as a revenue-producing measure) had been found constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court, and would avoid a direct confrontation with the 2nd Amendment.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I don't think in common use means that technological advancements in firearms cannot be part of protected arms. Machine guns are a different class of firearm altogether from say a pistol or shotgun whether revolver, pump or semi-auto. Also, not all firearm advances were for military usage either. I think in common use refers to classes of weapons like handgun, long gun, shotgun etc. FA is yet another class and one that was never in common use even when it was not that expensive to procure. As to ownership, FA is not banned just regulated more than other weapons so you may own them if you wish to buy one and are not otherwise disqualified but the fact that they are expensive because of FOPA '86 won't get a court to overturn either the Hughes Amendment or the NFA. As I have said before go through your representative and have them repealed if you can but they are not unconstitutional.

That means guns, knives, pointy sticks, and even artillery.

I think the courts have ruled otherwise and the definition for arms is firearms not all arms. And I believe Heller shows in around pages 52-3. You may also be getting the militia the individual rights mixed up that Heller decoupled.

[divemedic]

I think the courts have ruled otherwise and the definition for arms is firearms not all arms.

The only one I am aware of off the top of my head is the one out of NY, with Sotomayor as the judge.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You would be wrong. From the link:

Interesting link. Seems to come from a site that sells NFA items. Who wrote it?

Here is a link to a court case: http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/530f2d103.html

and quote: As the legislative history of the Act under consideration clearly shows, (p.108)Congress was dealing with problems which threaten the maintenance of public order. There can be no question that an organized society which fails to regulate the importation, manufacture and transfer of the highly sophisticated lethal weapons in existence today does so at its peril. The requirement that no one may possess a submachine gun which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record is a reasonable regulation for the maintenance of public order.

I don't have a copy of the debate but I suspect what Congress was trying to do was limit criminal use of FA and not necessarily ownership by the general public (which in 1934 was probably non-existent).

If Congress was trying to do that then they would have accordingly raised the tax as the years went by to further economically restrict lawful ownership. The key issue of the NFA was the registry and the tax was just a way they used to justify the registry.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The only one I am aware of off the top of my head is the one out of NY, with Sotomayor as the judge.

Can you cite any controlling court case that says the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear any and all types of arms such as artillery or rocket launchers?

[Hkmp5sd]

Speculation and no evidence to show reliably that the NFA "caused" FA to not be in common use. I don't think a court would buy it. I don't either.

Speculation and no evidence to show the NFA hasn't "caused" FA to not be in common used. Merely your opinion.

Most folks have never even considered using a FA for SD in the belief that all FAs were illegal to start with. Thus it is inaccurate to claim that everyone not already a gun fanatic would disapprove of using a FA for SD.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Speculation and no evidence to show the NFA hasn't "caused" FA to not be in common used. Merely your opinion.

Evidence has been provided however you choose not to believe it. Nevertheless the SCOTUS used the criteria of "in common use" to uphold the NFA and not deregulate machine guns and that fact stands clear. BTW, if you assert the NFA caused FA not to be in common use aren't YOU supposed to prove that? You haven't done so, just expressed your opinion.

Most folks have never even considered using a FA for SD in the belief that all FAs were illegal to start with. Thus it is inaccurate to claim that everyone not already a gun fanatic would disapprove of using a FA for SD.

Most folks don't consider FA because it is not suitable for their needs. Did you not catch Gura's comments on public opinion of FA in the link I posted? You should take a look at it.

As to gun fanatics the only place you will hear the choir chortling for unrestricted military weapons is on gun forums like TFL. Sometimes when you spent too much time in a small culture you get tunnel vision. Joe Citizen ain't interested in FA although they might own a gun for SD. That is the elephant in the room the gunnies don't see. Oddly, I believe some of the recent interest and purchase of Ar-15s was caused in part by the '94 AWB. However, the NFA enactment did not spur great interest in FA.

[Hkmp5sd]

I believe some of the recent interest and purchase of Ar-15s was caused in part by the '94 AWB.

Wow. We finally agree on something. :)

[divemedic]

Can you cite any controlling court case that says the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear any and all types of arms such as artillery or rocket launchers?

Being that the Heller case was the first to truly address the issue head on, of course not. In the absence of case law, look at the way things were at the founding.

Answer me this:

How is Congress supposed to grant the letters of Marque if the people they were granting them to did not have access to the means of carrying it out?

The battle of Lexington and Concord was fought because the British were coming to destroy the weapons in the armory. Those weapons did not include just small arms, they included field pieces, powder, shot, and cannon balls. The 2A was written to prevent a Federalist government from taking arms from the people ever again. IMO, the experiment has failed.

This is not the country that the founders intended.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

In the absence of case law, look at the way things were at the founding.

Seems like you want it both ways. You want the freedoms or lack of any regulation of 1789 with the weapons of 2009. You can't say; "Make it like it was then but with what I want now."

Maybe the Founding Fathers would have enacted the NFA if the conditions were the same in 1789 as they were in 1934. That is the problem when you try to compare periods of history. They never match.

How is Congress supposed to grant the letters of Marque if the people they were granting them to did not have access to the means of carrying it out?

Like the militia, Letters of Marque are a defunct dead letter. Congress won't grant them again.

The 2A was written to prevent a Federalist government from taking arms from the people ever again. IMO, the experiment has failed.

The Second Amendment was written to allow the States to arm their militias (now the National Guard) if the need arose and to ensure we citizens could own firearms to protect ourselves personally.

The militia experiment did indeed fail and the militia is no more, but today we are better and more effectively armed personally than the Founding Fathers could have ever dreamed.

We are in very good shape there.

This is not the country that the founders intended

Yeah that's right. But I never cared for slavery come to think of it. I'm glad our country today is different.

Anyway, it isn't their country anymore, it is ours.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Wow. We finally agree on something.


And I bet you thought I was a Brady socialist :p

[Al Norris]

Like the militia, Letters of Marque are a defunct dead letter.
....
The Second Amendment was written to allow the States to arm their militias
However antiquated you may find these clauses, they are still part of the Constitution. Until such a time as they are amended or repealed, they still have meaning, whether or not they are used.

Does the above sound familiar? It should. It's a paraphrase of what Scalia said in Heller.

Therefore, if an enacted piece of legislation should appear to defeat the purpose of either the militia clause (even though decoupled from self-defense) or the Letters of Marque or Reprise, then such a law is null and void.

Justice Scalia and the majority know this, hence the carefully worded caution in Heller. The Miller case can still be interpreted, when used in conjunction with the above Constitutional mandates, as bearing arms in common use (by the military).

It may very well be true that the militia will never be used again. It may also be true that the Congress may never again issue such Letters. But as long as the clauses remain within the COTUS, the Hughes Amendment is in jeopardy. The Court knows and acknowledged this.

[Mike Irwin]

The militia, organized OR unorganized (there is a difference in US code) is hardly dead.

During World War II the United States Government procured, and provided, arms to citizens who provided internal security for war production plants and lesser, but no less critical, facilities.

The militia is still distinctly called out in the same US Code section that was updated to create the National Guard.

If the militia were truly dead, it is likely that it would have been stricken at that time, or during the later times that that section of US code was updated (in the 1950s, to account for creation of a separate Air Force).

The militia is also not dead for the simple fact that, by US Code, all members of the population between a certain upper and lower age are automatically members of the militia.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

However antiquated you may find these clauses, they are still part of the Constitution. Until such a time as they are amended or repealed, they still have meaning, whether or not they are used.

I agree Al, however the OP was about FA and the NFA which does not violate the COTUS. The problem arises when folk forget and think that the militia and Letters of Marque are creatures of their own which exist outside of government regulation. I have never said that a state cannot raise, call forth or arm a militia but it is up to the state to do so not a group of citizens who think they have the authority to do so. If Tennessee decides to enroll me in the militia and issue me a M2 Machine Gun then fine (and Walter Dellinger agrees) but I cannot on my own do so and then use the militia clause or 2A to justify it.

The Miller case can still be interpreted, when used in conjunction with the above Constitutional mandates, as bearing arms in common use (by the military).

Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

This too is from Heller. and then:

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.”

You say in common use by the military I read in common use "at the time" for defense of person and home. FA is not that.

But as long as the clauses remain within the COTUS, the Hughes Amendment is in jeopardy. The Court knows and acknowledged this.

Has the court spoken to the Hughes Amendment? Now, to your credit I think Hughes could be challenged in that in creates a de facto ban on a class of weapons that although heavily regulated are not banned federally. However, the NFA I sse is here to stay:


That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The militia is hardly dead.

Dead and buried over a 100 years.

During World War II the United States Government procured, and provided, arms to citizens who provided internal security for war production plants and lesser, but no less critical, facilities.

We have those today. They are called contractor security guards. They are not militia.

If the militia were truly dead, it is likely that it would have been stricken at that time, or during the later times that that section of US code was updated (in the 1950s, to account for creation of a separate Air Force).

The Militia Act of 1903 gives you three options. 1) You are either in the Organized Militia (which is the National Guard) this term not being around in 1789.

2)You are not in the militia at all. You are the wrong sex or age.

3) You are in the Unorganized Militia, a mere statutory construct that neither protects nor grants it's members any duties, rights or responsibilities but is merely a pool of people that may be used in the Organized Militia.

No court has recognized any rights of an "unorganized militiaman".

I have a picture I can send you of what the unorganized militia looks like;)

[RDak]

Just read this thread and don't really have a solid opinion one way or the other except to say that full-auto, NFA regulations, will probably stand SCOTUS review IMHO. However, the "common use by the military" is a good argument against my opinion.

That said, what do you guys think about the 1986 Act where only "old" automatic firearms can be legally purchased? Do you see any way that could fail judicial review?

[ADB]

The militia, organized OR unorganized (there is a difference in US code) is hardly dead.

What does everybody think the National Guard is?

Organized state militias.

[Mike Irwin]

"Dead and buried over a 100 years."

Your proof in as much as the laws were repealed is... what?

"We have those today. They are called contractor security guards. They are not militia."

So you're saying today is EXACTLY the same as 1941-1946, when 16 million men were under arms and the vast majority of them were overseas?

There were contract security guards in the 1940s, too. But it wasn't contract security guards who were guarding rail crossings in Lower Thumbsuck, it was MILITIA.

You're also saying that there will never again be a national emergency of that scope? Can I have your crystal ball?

The Government also didn't procure firearms for contract security guards, it procured firearms to arm those whose unpaid civilian front duties necessitated them being armed as members of the militia.

The Government also published numerous manuals on the suitability of arms in civilian hands -- handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, etc. -- being used in unpaid civilian front duties as members of the militia.


It's very quaint and nice to claim that something is "dead and buried," but claiming that based solely on the fact that it's been 60 years since the last call doesn't make it so.

[Mike Irwin]

"3) You are in the Unorganized Militia, a mere statutory construct that neither protects nor grants it's members any duties, rights or responsibilities but is merely a pool of people that may be used in the Organized Militia."

Wrong.

Let's look at the wording of the actual section of US Code:

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

That wording very CLEARLY points out the difference between the organized militia and the unorganized militia, giving both organizations force of law and equal weight.

The ONLY differentiation is for women, who are not members of the unorganized militia; they are members of the militia only if they are members of the National Guard.

The National Guard Act was never intended to strip recognition of the unorganized militia, nor did it.

In 1941 the National Guard was nationalized and became part of the US military organization. That left the unorganized militia to provide services in the manner that I've described above, which members did, and very ably.


You may also want to educate yourself on the activities of the unorganized militia in Oregon and Alaska during World War II, especially in Alaska, where some unorganized militia troops, unpaid VOLUNTEERS, actually saw combat against the Japanese.

Sounds really obsolete to me...


Edit: Even better, here's an interesting article that you should read that describes the activities of the unorganized militia in greater detail. I read it when it first came out; very easy to find via google.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/popular/IsTheMilitiaObsolete.htm

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Your proof in as much as the laws were repealed is... what?


No need to show that, just look at the laws that have been passed since the Militia Act of 1792 and you can see the death of that system.

You're also saying that there will never again be a national emergency of that scope?

Sure there will, but like then it will not be dealt with by the militia, but by our professional Army and LEOs.

That wording very CLEARLY points out the difference between the organized militia and the unorganized militia

Correct

giving both organizations force of law and equal weight

Incorrect. The unorganized militia has no duties, responsibilties or rights. See: U.S. v. Warin, 530 F.2d 103 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 426 U.S. 948 (1976).
and U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F.2d 384 (10th Cir 1977). In fact the original purpose of the unorganized militia was to get folks OUT of serving in what was then a mandatory obligation of militia service.

You may also want to educate yourself on the activities of the unorganized militia in Oregon and Alaska during World War II, especially in Alaska, where some unorganized militia troops, unpaid VOLUNTEERS, actually saw combat against the Japanese.

Lots of activities that folks like Jon Roland for instance, THINK are militia activity are in fact not. Neighborhood crime watches, people banding together armed to fend off looters are examples as are those you just listed. Isolated, short duration and not militia.

Mike, rather than refute you point by point here is a reference for you to read as well: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp

I think they do a good job of demonstrating in a more detailed and academic way the posts I made earlier.

ETA:
In the absence of the "well regulated militia", you're a jackass with a rifle.

[zukiphile]

To consider a liberty obsolete, as Tennessee Gentleman writes he does, cannot be considered a cogent argument against its enforcement. Why the right might be considered obsolete is still another matter. When asked for some coherent reasoning for limiting only 2d Am rights to those in common use by civilians, TG remains silent. It appears that you, TG, don't see reasoning for the distinction you advocate.

Can you cite any controlling court case that says the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear any and all types of arms such as artillery or rocket launchers?


Since the issue is whether the existing doctrine and case law are well reasoned, this implicit argument by authority is well wide of the mark.

Of course, not all our laws or constitutional doctrine are strictly logical. They are influenced by the outcome with political support and what people want, well reasoned or not. However, there is an obvious danger in throwing a part of the COTUS under the bus with crumby reasoning as a political expedient. It erodes the integrity of constitutional thought and undermines the real authority of law, the authority derived from making sense and being able to withstand scrutiny.

"In common use by civilians to whom use has been effectively prohibited or curtailed" fails that test.

We aren't stuck with anything in the COTUS. We can change it. But just ignoring it isn't forthright. It isn't the way men governed by laws should do things.

[44 AMP]

We have essentially two camps, and a middle ground. On one side are those who believe that we should be allowed to own NFA weapons, without restriction, until/unless we personally commit a crime (of violence), sufficient to legally deny us our right to all firearms.

On the other are those who believe that machinguns/assault weapons (et.al) should either be highly restricted or outright prohibited, for public safety. Many of these people feel thins way about all firearms, but many do not.

And the middle ground, people who believe that while the govt has a valid interest in regulating possession of these weapons, restrictions should reasonable and not be overly onerous.

We can spend hours discussing the history and supposed reasoning behind our rights, and behind the existing laws, but this does nothing to deal with the laws as they currently exist. We do this, again in two camps, those who believe rights do not exist until a court says they do, and those who believe that rights exist until a court rules they do not!

Which camp are you in?

Personally, while I find the NFA to be an infringement (IMHO), I am willing to obey the law. What I find to be outright wrong is the 1986 Hughes amendment, closing the registry, and effectively creating and ultimate ban on this class of firearm. I believe that is where we should focus our efforts to repeal this travesty. The track record of legal FA owners is virtually spotless, compared to virtually everything else in the world! One violent crime in 70plus years? And that one committed by a cop? Statistically insignificant. No one in the nation has a historically better record for obeying the laws than those people willing to go through all the regulatory process to obtain a legal FA firearm!

There are two things I would like to see the govt do. Reopen the NFA registry for machineguns (and since I live in a state that prohibits ownership, this has no personal stake for me), its just the right thing to do. And second, refund the process for allowing convicted felons to appeal and have their firearms rights restored.

There are so many things today that are felonies, and will get your firearms rights denied, but are not crimes physically injurious to others. People convicted of those kinds of crimes should have a method available to have their rights restored, after their sentence has been completed. There is no reason (except money, and a degree of public perception) why they are being denied. And there is no reason to believe restoration of the appeals process will result in blanket approval of felons getting guns (legally). The whole point of creating the process was to have a case by case review, and restoration of rights being approved or denied, based on the individual circumstances.

There is no valid reason someone who is guiltly of, say criminal trespass (felony level) at age 19 should still be denied their right to arms decades later, after having reformed and led a crime free life in the meantime. Yet, these kinds of cases exist, along with many others similar in nature. Many States allow restoration of rights, but the Feds do not, even though there is a process in place. By denying funding for the process, they deny the process. Sorry for the hijack.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well said 44 AMP, I like your post. A couple of thoughts;

On the other are those who believe that machinguns/assault weapons (et.al) should either be highly restricted or outright prohibited, for public safety. Many of these people feel thins way about all firearms, but many do not.
And the middle ground, people who believe that while the govt has a valid interest in regulating possession of these weapons, restrictions should reasonable and not be overly onerous.

I don't see as much separation between the two camps mentioned above. I am in the camp that the 2A is not an absolute right that breaks down into anygun, anyone and anywhere but may be reasonably regulated. The key to the middle ground is the word onerous. Lots of latitude there and when you say the government has a valid interest in regulating FA well, that is because of public safety as the position above the middle ground states.

We do this, again in two camps, those who believe rights do not exist until a court says they do, and those who believe that rights exist until a court rules they do not!

Which camp are you in?

I don't believe the courts establish rights but they do interpret laws to see if they conflict with a right and further interprets what the right entitles you to do.

Some on TFL believe THEY determine what the right is (like the 2A) by their personal reasoning of what they believe COTUS says and that you must show/convince them that it is not so or you are infringing on their rights. I think Glenn Meyer calls this the chortling choir. But that is what forums are for I guess;).

I do not find the NFA to be an infringement. It may be said reasonably that the NFA is the reason why there has been virtually no crimes committed by legally owned FA since the law was enacted. In that regard the NFA has been successful. Which brings me to the Hughes amendment in which as I have said earlier you might have a point since it's enactment creates an arguable de facto ban.

Has anyone challenged Hughes in court? I do not know. A good strategy might be to use the amendment method that was used to allow CCW in National Parks. The problem there as Alan Gura has said before, outside the gun culture there is not a lot of support for FA.

As to the felony/reinstatement of rights I am a believer in "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" but if a person could show they had changed their ways sufficiently AND PAID ALL LEGAL COSTS assoicated with the hearing then I would be OK with that as well. That way they have to pay the price to restore their rights that they willingly gave up when they transgressed.

[RDak]

TG: Members at other gunsites have said there are rumors the Hughes Amendment will be challenged at a later date.

I have no idea if this is true. Just heresay.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Interesting RDak, I am surprised it has not been legally challenged before. I agree with most folk on TFL that it was stupid legislation and was aimed at derailing the FOPA. Does nothing but run up the price of FA. Man, I wish I had bought an M-16 back when I could have gotten one for a few hundred bucks and then sold it today for 30K!

[TEDDY]

all of you were born after WW2.I was not.
you need to do some research before you post.the NG was organized in 1903/6.prier to that there was a small national army.most soldiers of the civil war were in volunteer units.it was still so in the spanish american war.roosevelts riders were a volunteer army armed by roosevelt,as were many civil war units.in CW the units bought their Spensers and Winchesters themselves.in WW1 the NG was disbanded and personal intergrated in the army.after WW1 they rejoined the guard.in 1934 the NG was intergrated in to the army reserve.so the NG is not militia.it is national army.there are several organized militias.texas has one and Mass and RI that I remember.
mariums were used in the 1880 period by the British in Africa.and there was
a repeating firearm in 1500?it was rotory and flintlock fired.and the gatling and about 8 other arms were used in the civil war.machine guns were made with more advanced machinery than needed for rifles or pistols.most all the MGs were brought back from WW1 but many from WW2.and there are tanks and artillery in private hands. I know where there are a number.
not to mention theres thousands of MG and sub guns not registered.
I know where there are migs 15/17/21.in private hands.plus cobras fully armed.and at least one B25 with the 75 mm in the nose.B17 and B25 P40s.
I could go on.before WW2 I could get any thing I wanted.:rolleyes:

[Tennessee Gentleman]

prier to that there was a small national army.most soldiers of the civil war were in volunteer units.it was still so in the spanish american war.roosevelts riders were a volunteer army armed by roosevelt,as were many civil war units.

Yes that is true and it was a mess particularly in the Spanish American War. Many of these units were untrained and their states didn't want to pay to keep them up and felt the Fed should do it but the Fed thought otherwise. As a result the Militia Act of 1903 was passed replacing the state militias with the National Guard which the was called the Organized Militia and much later was federalized to a greater degree.

in CW the units bought their Spensers and Winchesters themselves.

Some did but not all and it caused logistical problems as that type of system would with firearms using multiple types of ammo in a military environment. Today it is against regulations to bring personal firearms along with you to combat and for good reason.

not to mention theres thousands of MG and sub guns not registered.

Got any evidence of that? Also, you know those who have them are breaking the law and are criminals.

I know where there are migs 15/17/21.in private hands.plus cobras fully armed.and at least one B25 with the 75 mm in the nose.B17 and B25 P40s.

The aircraft may be in private hands but I doubt your claim that they are armed with fully functioning armaments and ammo. If they are then it is very expensive or illegal. I doubt your claim.

I could go on.before WW2 I could get any thing I wanted.

Really? Did you? If not why not? Would it have been legal? The NFA was enacted in 1934. Would you say those weapons were "in common use"?

[maestro pistolero]

As the legislative history of the Act under consideration clearly shows, (p.108)Congress was dealing with problems which threaten the maintenance of public order. There can be no question that an organized society which fails to regulate the importation, manufacture and transfer of the highly sophisticated lethal weapons in existence today does so at its peril. The requirement that no one may possess a submachine gun which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record is a reasonable regulation for the maintenance of public order.

Except we all know that in effect the NFA goes much further, in fact all but assures the eventual disappearance of FA from public hands. The closing of the registration, combined with the requirement for registration creates a ban.

Perhaps a higher level of required training, screening, and safe storage requirement would be in order, but to support an outright ban is to undermine the amendment for one of it's primary purposes, the ability of the common man to resist and overthrow a future tyrannical government.

TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A? If not, how can you reconcile such a disparity in the arms available to accomplish the purpose should the need arise?

(for the record, we are nowhere near tyranny, IMO and our democratic institutions are working as they should, unless and until we lose the ability to throw the bums out)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Except we all know that in effect the NFA goes much further, in fact all but assures the eventual disappearance of FA from public hands.

The 1934 NFA does no such thing. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 could be argued to do such. In that regard I think a constitutional challenge would be interesting to see. Otherwise, I think legislation might do better.

TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A?

Yes, as it pertains to the individual right. No, as it pertains to the state militia. The individual right pertains I believe to the individual right of personal self defense. My readings of history and the COTUS debates lead me to believe such.

The 2A was insisted upon by the anti-federalists who feared a large standing army AND the unprecendented control given Congress by the COTUS to control the militia.

The idea was that with a small standing army and the defense of the nation thus mostly in the hands of large state militias that a tyrant could not oppose such because the state militias would be more powerful than the national army and would serve as a check against tyranny.

The anti-fedieralists feared that if the states were not able to arm their militias that the Fed could then disarm them and render them ineffective. Thus the Second Amendment.

The historical irony is that in the end the states themselves sold out their militias because their citizens did not want to serve in them and the states did not want to pay for them.

If not, how can you reconcile such a disparity in the arms available to accomplish the purpose should the need arise?

There are some who argue, without any historical or legal basis, as you alllude to that "out there somewhere" is this "citizen's militia" that is unorganized, untrained, unlead, unfamiliar with each other with no accountability to any constitutional government that will in a time of crisis rise up as one with their military weapons and defeat tyranny. They provide esoteric and idealistic quotes from Thomas Jefferson, Tench Coxe and others that they feel support their premise.

The historical facts of course are quite different. No such thing (even pre-constitution in the colonies) EVER existed in that manner. Pure fantasy. In fact in the case of Jefferson he later ruefully admitted that the republican ideal of the militia he dreamed of could never be.

So back to your question, as far as military weapons (FA et al) if the STATE lawfully formed a militia they could if they chose arm them with such weapons and Congress could not prevent it.

The individual may not claim such a right even as a member of the unorganized militia under which one has no rights, duties or responsibilites under the 2A.

For more information on the militia, here is a resource: http://www.adl.org/mwd/faq1.asp

[maestro pistolero]

The 1934 NFA does no such thing. The Hughes Amendment to the FOPA 1986 could be argued to do such.

Right, I stand corrected.

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
TG, would you contend that resisting tyranny is an illegitimate purpose for 2A?
Yes, as it pertains to the individual right. No, as it pertains to the state militia. The individual right pertains I believe to the individual right of personal self defense. My readings of history and the COTUS debates lead me to believe such.
Well, then, if the militia is dead, as you say, then so is the right to armed resistance to tyranny, right? How would you account for this gaping hole in the ability of citizens to overthrow a genuine tyranny? We just allow a lowly militia act to supersede the constitution?
There are some who argue, without any historical or legal basis, as you alllude to that "out there somewhere" is this "citizen's militia" that is unorganized, untrained, unlead, unfamiliar with each other with no accountability to any constitutional government that will in a time of crisis rise up as one with their military weapons and defeat tyranny.
That sounds like a description of the American revolution itself; it is hardly without any historical basis, and you know that. As to the lack of training, or unfamiliarity with each other, that is a temporary weakness that could be corrected should the need arise. Actual boot camp is, what, 8-10 weeks? You get my point. The ability to be sufficiently armed is what cannot be easily rectified if the guns were gone. Again, this is hypothetical, not some whack-job's call to arms.

Seriously, TG, aren't you the least bit concerned, that over time, let's say a couple hundred more years, that the worst fears of our founders could become a reality? Do you trust government so much that you would allow even the tiniest crack in the dam to go unrepaired?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Well, then, if the militia is dead, as you say, then so is the right to armed resistance to tyranny, right?

I was reading an interesting part of that new book about Clinton and fighting the NRA. The quote said that in times of emergency the people tend to call for more government involvement not less. But I digress. I think in the age of a mature liberal democratic society we live in today talking about armed insurrection falls rather flat. And before you trot out the usual suspects of Nazi Germany and Stalin remember that none of them ever had the type of democratic institutions we possess today. The great danger today to freedom is apathy in not participating in the political process not a lack of machineguns in Joe Citizen's hands.


That sounds like a description of the revolution itself.

No, the Revolution happened because there was no other political recourse. We have such today.

It is hardly without any historical basis, and you know that. As to the lack of training, or unfamiliarity with each other, that is a temporary weakness that could be corrected should the need arise. Actual boot camp is, what, 8-10 weeks?

Not to be insulting but that statement made me chuckle some. In my previous profession we would call such an organization a Charlie Foxtrot. No, you cannot form an effective force in 8-10 weeks. Maybe on Red Dawn but not in real life and the militias were NEVER such a thing. They had a predetermined leadership, organization and they trained together (albeit some better than others with New England being the best).

The ability to be sufficiently armed is what cannot be easily rectified if the guns were gone.

Well heck, based on that scenario just go break into your local NG or Reserve armory and load up! Drive the tanks and arty out the gate and go to town. You can get the small arms ammo from the guns stores you loot! Just kidding!;)

Seriously, TG, aren't you the least bit concerned, that over time, let's say a couple hundred more years, that the worst fears of our founders could become a reality?

233 years and counting! :D

[maestro pistolero]

In my previous profession we would call such an organization a Charlie Foxtrot. No, you cannot form an effective force in 8-10 weeks.

I think there might be a qualified patriot or two who would step into leadership positions. We send our kids into battle with no more experience than that. The Militia defeated what was considered the greatest army in the world at the time, in part, because they were more clever, and there was no disparity in the performance of their small arms.

No, the Revolution happened because there was no other political recourse. Isn't that nearly a definition of tyranny? If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I think there might be a qualified patriot or two who would step into leadership positions.

Who? Why not get that guy or gal to run for office? They would do a lot better in that capacity.

We send our kids into battle with no more experience than that.

No we don't.

The Militia defeated what was considered the greatest army in the world at the time, in part, because they were more clever, and there was no disparity in the performance of their small arms.

The Continental Army with the great help of the French and a United Kingdom embroiled in a war with France sort of helped out. BTW Washington spoke against the militia that were used and the Virginia militia let the British occupy Thomas Jefferson's home. He soon saw the folly of the idea and militia began to fade.

If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.

Correct! Which is why the insurrection talk is moot. BTW we aren't colonies anymore. We never had any political recourse with Great Britain.

[maestro pistolero]

Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero
If there were still political recourse this whole discussion is mute.
Correct! Which is why the insurrection talk is moot. BTW we aren't colonies anymore. We never had any political recourse with Great Britain.

And if ever there weren't recourse again? Are you saying it's impossible? I, too, find it extremely unlikely in the short term. But government doesn't tend get to smaller and expand rights over time. You'd have to be an ostrich not to see which way this inclines.

Is it really so inconceivable, that over time, the government could cross the line to despotism? Isn't that possibility a primary reason the right was codified in the first place? I just don't see how one can toss that aside without a concern in the world for the freedom of future generations.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

And if ever there weren't recourse again? Are you saying it's impossible?

Theoretically nothing is impossible. Chemical pollution may one day cause the dead to rise and eat us but I don't prepare for that.

But government doesn't tend get to smaller and expand rights over time.

And yet during our 233 years the government has expanded AND so have our civil rights. Don't believe it? Go read the Alien and Sedition Acts from 1798.

Is it really so inconceivable, that over time, the government could cross the line to despotism?

Yes, in the way many of you on TFL feel it will.

Isn't that possibility a primary reason the right was codified in the first place?

For the state militia yes, for the individual no.

I just don't see how one can toss that aside without a concern in the world for the freedom of future generations.

I don't which is why I say vote, stay involved politically in your community. Join the NRA or other like minded groups (NOT the Oath Keepers) and use the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Your vote to establish a government by of and for the people. Don't be apathetic politically and naive enough to think the supressed fully tricked out M-16 in your gun safe will do the job for you and protect freedom.

[maestro pistolero]

I don't which is why I say vote, stay involved politically in your community. Join the NRA or other like minded groups (NOT the Oath Keepers) and use the gift our Founding Fathers gave us. Your vote to establish a government by of and for the people. Don't be apathetic politically and naive enough to think the supressed fully tricked out M-16 in your gun safe will do the job for you and protect freedom.

Is that what you think of TFL members, TG? I am neither apathetic politically nor naive, and I don't think an M-16, fully tricked out or not, is a substitute for participating in the democratic process. I am not sure how you could think that based on anything I wrote in this thread.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Is that what you think of TFL members, TG?

Some of them yeah I do. Combined with a good dose of Walter Mitty. Not all of them. If the shoe fits....

I am neither apathetic politically nor naive, and I don't think an M-16, fully tricked out or not, is a substitute for participating in the democratic process.

Didn't refer to you specifically(that was a generic you)..like I said about the shoe fitting. Nevertheless I applaud your participation in the process and I repeat if you and many more others become or remain that way you won't need a machine gun to fight off the gubmint. BTW, IMHO if we ever got to that point, as the Russians say; the living would envy the dead. It would not be the heroic Red Dawn Unintended Consequnces tripe if our country imploded. But I don't believe it will ever happen.

[Hkmp5sd]

It would not be the heroic Red Dawn Unintended Consequnces tripe if our country imploded.

I vision it more like a nationwide version of Manhattan from Escape From New York.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I vision it more like a nationwide version of Manhattan from Escape From New York.

The question is: Whom would be the Duke of New York?:cool:

[RDak]

TG: How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion).

Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".

Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?

Isn't it really that simple of a concept as far as the founding fathers were concerned? (Sure, those in power would view this "formation of well regulated militias" as rebel activity and try to quash it by force or prison time. But that's how it always is IMHO.)

ETA: It appears that you feel there is no non-voting remedy nowadays for ordinary folks to thwart real life tyranny any longer?

I say, the 2nd Amendment allows us to form well regulated militias for this purpose. By "us" I mean the unregulated militias. Whether this "formation" is successful depends on how it is received by all of America. But that's how it always is in other similar situations throughout time IMHO.

Btw, I would make you the "Duke of NY" because you seem to be an honest, decent guy. There would be others also IMHO.

(As to full auto ever becoming a commonly used weapon, that appears to be a red herring argument because the 1934 NFA Act came out reasonably soon after automatic, hand held, weapons were even available. I mean, they were only around for about 15 to 20 years by 1934 weren't they? And they were expensive I assume. [The first Thompson sub-machine gun was manufactured in 1921 and the BAR came out around the time of WWI.].)

[maestro pistolero]

ETA: It appears that you feel there is no remedy nowadays for ordinary folks to thwart real life tyranny any longer?

If I may summarize, TG seems to feel that only the states have the right to organize a revolution against a theoretically tyrannical government, and that common folks lack the ability, right, or even apparently the potential to organize and train.
Also, despite it's ongoing presence in the the BOR, TG believes the militia to be a 'dead letter'. "Dead and buried over a hundred years ago", never to be resurrected under any circumstances, except possibly by our trusted state governments, who are apparently not susceptible to any despotic leanings in TG's world.

How'd I do?

[RDak]

That's the feeling I get maestro.

I had a similar discussion with TG many months ago and I think he went away with the thought that it might be ok for the unregulated militia to organize their own well regulated militia. You know, with experienced military or LEO personnel as officers, trainers, etc.

That appeared to meet with TG's approval but we never went quite that far with our discussion.

ETA: But my main question to TG, this time, is whether regular unregulated militia folk are allowed to form well regulated militias pursuant to the 2nd Amendment? I say, on its face, yes. As long as their is a real threat of tyranny. Which is always going to be based on a subjective conclusion of "threat" if you get what I mean.

It appears, I may be wrong, that TG feels things have to be objectively obvious before the 2nd Amendment is even triggered in such a situation. That is an impossible standard to ever meet in the real world IMHO. It would be a red herring argument IMHO.

I mean, look at our own Revolution. There were many people who remained loyal to Britain. Yet the 2nd Amendment "idea" came out of that struggle IMHO. So, whether you have a tyrant, or not, is always a subjective judgment that each individual has to make IMHO.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Wow, these are good questions! I will try to answer as best I can.

How would a group of people organize to remove tyranny in modern day America, (i.e., in your opinion)...Let's assume the voting booth is "out the window' and there is clearly a tyrant attempting to "takeover".

Well being a student of history I will try to approach this one in a different way. One thing I have learned about catastrophic things like war is that they seldom seem to come about like we think they will.

When I was a student at the Naval War College during the '90s we spent a year trying to figure out who our next conventional enemy would be. We figured Iran and North Korea and we planned how we would beat them. We were wrong of course and terrorism became the next challenge for us to face.

So in that vein I think the next "tyranny" that we could possibly face would not be the Nazi/Stalin scenario that so many seem to believe will occur complete with cattle cars and concentration camps. I see political and community apathy being the real danger and so the minority of gun owners would never be able to change that threat with the mere ownership of guns.

In other words I cannot see a "tyranny" as many hold out here on TFL that could be opposed by Joe Citizen with a machine gun.

Wouldn't the unregulated militia, or State authorities, then be allowed to form well regulated militias?

When you say unregulated are you talking about unorganized? Keep in mind the unorganized militia was a term that came out around 1830 as a way to keep people OUT of serving in the militia.

Nevertheless, the states are allowed to form their militias now. Nothing to stop them. Ever wonder why they don't do it? Even Walter Dellinger agreed with that and I posted links to his comments on that before. The militias died because the states did not want to pay for them, they were ineffective in defending the nation, and citizens did not want to serve in them. The unorganized militia that exists in statute today has no rights, duties, or responsibilities and so is a dead letter in fact as well. It is a mere statutory construct.

However the 2A part of the equation was that our nation would be defended by a small standing army with a large state militia system and the 2A was written to keep state control intact over those miltias that the Federalist COTUS had given the Fed large amounts of control over these militias to.

The idea was that with a small standing army and a large state militia defending the country the ability of a tryant to take over would not be there since the state militias would not allow them to effect such and would out number the standing army. That dynamic is no more and after the civil war I don't think the state militias could perform those functions.

[Al Norris]

Using the Gentleman's own criteria, using the backdrop of international terrorism, all that would be required would be a nod from your city fathers. Perhaps even the local Sheriff or Police Chief, to form a "reaction" unit to protect the infrastructure and provide a "ready reserve" for the uniformed officers of your area.

Just tossing this to the wind.....

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I say, the 2nd Amendment allows us to form well regulated militias for this purpose. By "us" I mean the unregulated militias. Whether this "formation" is successful depends on how it is received by all of America. But that's how it always is in other similar situations throughout time IMHO.


I would disagree and say that looking at our history no such formation ever existed nor was planned to be. Leave aside the quotes from the founders about the republican ideal of the militia and look to what really existed then and you will see that to be true. I repeat, the 2A was never written to be a suicide clause of the republic. I think what you are talking about is a grass roots revolution (rebellion) and I don't think the 2A was written to that end.

Btw, I would make you the "Duke of NY" because you seem to be an honest, decent guy.

Well, thank you Sir and for that honor you will be the "The Dude in Waiting"!:D

(As to full auto ever becoming a commonly used weapon, that appears to be a red herring argument because the 1934 NFA Act came out reasonably soon after automatic, hand held, weapons were even available. I mean, they were only around for about 15 to 20 years by 1934 weren't they? And they were expensive I assume. [The first Thompson sub-machine gun was manufactured in 1921 and the BAR came out around the time of WWI.].)

I would counter that they are not in common use because they were not commonly used. Sorry for the Zen like logic but that sums it up best I think. For reasons of cost (you mentioned), wasteful use of ammo, practicality for law abiding uses, and dangerous design(supressive fire and area denial) I think people just didn't want them and I am talking all the way to 1986 when the registry closed and they weren't that expensive to buy. Now they are very expensive and so a small minority of gun folk long for their return.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If I may summarize, TG seems to feel that only the states have the right to organize a revolution against a theoretically tyrannical government, and that common folks lack the ability, right, or even apparently the potential to organize and train. Also, despite it's ongoing presence in the the BOR, TG believes the militia to be a 'dead letter'. "Dead and buried over a hundred years ago", never to be resurrected under any circumstances, except possibly by our trusted state governments, who are apparently not susceptible to any despotic leanings in TG's world.

Not quite. I assert that the well-regulated militia in the 2A was the State Militias that existed at that time. It is true that BoRs still include such and as such a state may form a militia for whatever reason it sees fit. That is the STATE, not a group of individuals. Many states forbid private militias today and their laws have survived court scrutiny. I say the armed well-regulated militia is a dead letter because the states made it so. I do believe the founders did not fear "despotic leanings" in the states only the fed and that is why the BoR did not apply to the States when they were first written.

But my main question to TG, this time, is whether regular unregulated militia folk are allowed to form well regulated militias pursuant to the 2nd Amendment?

No. Not under the 2A. Only the states could do so. As stated above many states have laws against doing so and they have been found to be constitutional.

Using the Gentleman's own criteria, using the backdrop of international terrorism, all that would be required would be a nod from your city fathers. Perhaps even the local Sheriff or Police Chief, to form a "reaction" unit to protect the infrastructure and provide a "ready reserve" for the uniformed officers of your area.

My understanding is that the "nod" would have to come from the Governor unless state law said otherwise. Now, I do not equate a LEO asking a citizen or citizens to help him effect an arrest to be a militia. Also, any such "reaction unit" would have to answer to legally elected authority and I couldn't imagine a state allowing that but they could. Furthermore I do not consider a neighborhood group (remember my picture of "Drunks with Guns") that forms up for self defense during a disaster or riot to be a militia either.

ETA:I had a similar discussion with TG many months ago and I think he went away with the thought that it might be ok for the unregulated militia to organize their own well regulated militia. You know, with experienced military or LEO personnel as officers, trainers, etc.

That wasn't me IIRC. I would not agree with that construct for those are not militia but unauthorized paramilitary organizations.

[Hkmp5sd]

Not quite. I assert that the well-regulated militia in the 2A was the State Militias that existed at that time. It is true that BoRs still include such and as such a state may form a militia for whatever reason it sees fit. That is the STATE, not a group of individuals. Many states forbid private militias today and their laws have survived court scrutiny. I say the armed well-regulated militia is a dead letter because the states made it so. I do believe the founders did not fear "despotic leanings" in the states only the fed and that is why the BoR did not apply to the States when they were first written.


So if I understand what you are saying, you say that the BoR was meant so that the States could form a militia to overthrough an overbearing federal government (which means instead of seceding, the South should have engaged the North in a true Civil War for the overall country) and that "the people" have no right to organize to overthrow anything (State or Federal government).

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So if I understand what you are saying, you say that the BoR was meant so that the States could form a militia to overthrough an overbearing government (which means instead of seceding, the South should have engaged the North in a true Civil War for the overall country) and that "the people" have no right to organize to overthrow anything (State or Federal government).

Well, we are talking about the Second Amendment right? The States already had militias (they were formed by their colonial charters for their common defense not as a hedge against tyranny) but the States wanted to make sure the Fed could not disarm their militias since the militia clause of the COTUS gave Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline them. The 2A specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true. It was NEVER intended to protect the right to armed paramilitary activities by self-selected groups outside of civilian political control.

[Hkmp5sd]

The 2A specifically guarantees the the right of states to ensure the arming of their militias in the face of fears that the federal government might effectively deny to arms to a state controlled militia. However, those fears never came true.

Was not the South, after deciding to not to play cooperatively and to withdraw from the Union, invaded and their State militias physically disarmed by the Federal government?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Was not the South, after deciding to not to play cooperatively and to withdraw from the Union, invaded and their State militias physically disarmed by the Federal government?

Not really, the Confederate Government specifically created a Confederate Army (same as the North did) that was distinct from all the state militias. The Confederacy fought the government with an Army not a militia.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

More on the Militia in the South after the Civil War.

"Following the Civil War, the militia was dead in spite of statutes to the contrary. Indeed, during most of the Reconstruction years the volunteer militia was dormant, except in ex-Confederate states. There the provisional governors had permission to constitute militia ... [These militia were] virtually the old Confederate Army down to the worn gray uniforms left over from the Civil War. A Confederate militia was intolerable to the Radical Republicans; so when they regained control of Congress they attached a rider to the Army Appropriations Act of March 2, 1867, that finally prohibited the formation of military units in the once Confederate states. President Johnson, rather than see soldiers go without pay, signed the bill but attached to it a sharp dissent that it was unconstitutional to deny a state the right to have militia.
"It soon became obvious that the state governments, forming under the radical regime, had to have more support than the scattered units of the regular army could provide. Accordingly, two years and one day after prohibiting militia in the rebel states, Congress on March 2, 1869, reallowed it. As far back as March 1862, Congress had stricken "white" from the basic militia statute, so the Radical Republicans intended to make the southern militia predominantly black..."

"The southern militia units, usually referred to as Negro militia, were not all black. There were some white units, but the two colors did not mingle...

"To the white people of the South and the Dunning school of historians of Reconstruction, the Negro militia was only made up of swaggering bullies. The whites opted, therefore, to use unbridled violence if necessary to eliminate it. Two hundred and ninety white rifle companies sprang up at one time in South Carolina alone. From one place or another, they found weapons. Although they lacked official sanction, these companies had behind them the determination of the society to establish white supremacy at all cost. Actual clashes between black and white units were rare, but bloodshed was not. White riflemen ambushed and killed black officers and white supporters of the Negro militia. These assassinations often took place in broad daylight with witnesses, but prosecutions were non-existent. This way, in the end, the leadership that supported the black militia was either killed or intimidated. When the Democrats returned to power in state after state of the ex-Confederacy, they terminated the black militia, disarmed the blacks, and excluded them from any role in the militia." - History of the Militia and the National Guard, 1983 John K. Mahon pp. 108-109.

[Hkmp5sd]

There is no way that a single State militia could throw off the federal government alone, even back in the 1860's. You say that States grouping their militias together to confront the federal government means they are forming armies and are therefore in violation of the Constitution and illegal.

So what is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

There is no way that a single State militia could throw off the federal government alone, even back in the 1860's.

That's not the point. Go back and look at what I posted about the fear of the Founding Fathers of a large standing army and the concern a tyrant could use one to control all the states and how ALL the State Militias would oppose such a move. That was not the reason the Civil War was fought. Abraham Lincoln was not a tyrant (I am from the south too) and was not trying to take control of the nation regardless of what the south thought. Do you think that if ALL the states or even 90% of them opposed the Fed in 1860 when the standing army had about 16,000 men that would not have stopped any Federal move?

You say that States grouping their militias together to confront the federal government means they are forming armies and are therefore in violation of the Constitution and illegal.

It was in 1861. It was treason and rebellion and as the COTUS provided it was crushed. None of the conditions many of you talk about that would provide legitimacy for revolution was happening before the Civil War. But we all know what that war was REALLY about.

[Hkmp5sd]

So pretty much, now that we have a National Guard, fully armed and supplied by the Federal Government, supposedly under the command of the governor of the State, and any militia not formed by the State is illegal, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So pretty much, now that we have a National Guard, fully armed and supplied by the Federal Government, supposedly under the command of the governor of the State, and any militia not formed by the State is illegal, the 2nd Amendment is meaningless.

Certainly not!:eek: First of all don't throw Heller away for Pete's Sake! We have an individual RKBA unconnected with service in the militia that the 2A protects. That is huge!

Second, depending on the particular state it might not be illegal to form an unauthorized paramilitary group but there is no 2A protection of such nor is it a militia. Also, your "membership" (if you aren't too old) in the unorganized militia gives you no special rights, duties or responsibilities.

[Hkmp5sd]

Not to worry. :) I was merely seeking to understand your position on the whole militia deal, some of which I do not agree with.

One thing I think is that the "people" whether legal or not, no longer possess that mindset required to take on the federal government. I don't even believe the American people have the mindset required to win a war on the scale of WWII.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Not to worry. I was merely seeking to understand your position on the whole militia deal, some of which I do not agree with.


Whew! Yeah I was hoping you wouldn't think I believe the 2A is meaningless.

One thing I think is that the "people" whether legal or not, no longer possess that mindset required to take on the federal government. I don't even believe the American people have the mindset required to win a war on the scale of WWII.

I hope that is not true politically. However, as to my son's generation, the Millenials, I am quite impressed with them especially in our armed forces. They are good!

[RDak]

TG: Thanks for your answers. Interesting.

Btw, I don't think you feel the 2nd Amendment is worthless at all.

You are more strict in a sense as to how the 2nd Amendment is "triggered" via the militia portion of the amendment than I am.

I do believe "well regulated" has a meaning and that might be where we disagree somewhat.

You seem to feel the well regulated militia can only be derived from State authorization. I'm not entirely convinced that that is the only way a well regulated militia can be formed.

Grassroots organizing can "grow" into a well regulated militia without the expressed consent of the State authorities, as long as it is eventually accepted by the State IMHO.

I do believe that a well regulated militia has to eventually have some sort of governmental involvement. Not sure it has to be started by the State though.

You do make a good point though when stating, in so many words, that the founding fathers might say: "RDak, you have to have some State involvement in order to form a well regulated militia, in the context we envisioned, when drafting the 2nd Amendment". (That is a good point on your part IMHO.)

(As to the NFA, $200 was alot of money for almost the entire period of 1934 through 1986 for many, many people. That is arguably a substantial reason for automatic weapons not being in common use either. "Either" being in reference to the automatic, hand-held weapon's short period of existence before the passing of the 1934 NFA Act. Not to mention the problem I assume many, many people had getting a permit approved by their sheriff. Oh well, this is subjective on my part.)

Anyway, thanks for answering my hypothetical. (I like talking about this stuff even if we don't entirely agree.)

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You are more strict in a sense as to how the 2nd Amendment is "triggered" via the militia portion of the amendment than I am.

Well, IMO the real beauty of our constitution and what really protects us from tyranny is the separation of powers. That was so brilliantly done and is I believe the real genius of the COTUS.

The State Militias have faded long ago and given way to a large standing army and the National Guard but look how much we depend on these separated powers! Heller is but one part of that benefit and that is why I feel participation in the political process is so important.

I will defend my freedoms with my vote and political activism when needed. I will defend myself from criminals with my gun. I think today that those who choose to face off against the government with guns will end up like the Branch Davidians or MOVE.

[maestro pistolero]

Branch Davidians, kids and all, were incinerated alive when the FBI accidentally ignited the compound. You might use a better example when touting the efficacy of the separation of powers.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Branch Davidians, kids and all, were incinerated alive when the FBI accidentally ignited the compound. You might use a better example when touting the efficacy of the separation of powers.

Not touting separation of powers with that example. Just the insanity of opposing by force the Federal Government and shooting Federal LEOs rather than using the courts and other legal means to redress grievances. BTW for what it's worth I lay that all on the head of David Koresh. But I don't want to get off track.

[maestro pistolero]

Not touting separation of powers with that example. But I don't want to get off track. Understood. Koresh was certifiable, to be sure. But there were mistakes made that unnecessarily cost innocent lives. I'll leave it there.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Just an update. Mr. Hamblen (mentioned in the OP) lost his appeal. See here http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2009/1230/No-right-to-bear-unlicensed-machine-guns-federal-court-says.

[OuTcAsT]

I think today that those who choose to face off against the government with guns will end up like the Branch Davidians


Do you mean murdered at the hands of "government" ?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Do you mean murdered at the hands of "government" ?

That, is another thread I won't get into here. Sorry.

[Yellowfin]

OK, here's a more plausible one for you that might make a little more sense to you, TG. Consider the case of Arizona where Mexican drug violence is a documented problem, and in other places, increasing in number these days, where Hispanic gang violence is also. There you do have a paramilitary level threat where individuals really could use all the firepower possible for defensive purposes, and waiting on the police and/or military to arrive isn't a survivable option for them. Nor is it the case that LE/.mil have that under control, they clearly don't. How about that case for select fire? Sure it isn't strictly necessary, but an extra measure that would suit the circumstances.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

How about that case for select fire?

Sure it isn't strictly necessary

I think you answer yourself if necessity is what you are talking about. I am not sure that some rancher having an M-16 or a rocket launcher or a 105 MM howitzer is not just as well and better served by an AR-15. I know we are talking about select fire but I know where this rabbit trail leads. ;)

Finally, if such a real threat emerged as you seem to imply, do you really believe that the US govenrment would just sit there, do nothing and tel people to dial 911? I think not. A real paramiltary threat would be met with considerable military force I am certain so I don't see select fire providing much benefit.

Now, my personal opinion is that for civilian self defense the "rock and roll" option is both overrated and inappropriate.

[maestro pistolero]

I think the activity of the cartels and it's influence on urban life in the US is as big a national security threat to the US as any middle-eastern country. There are little Mexican towns along the border with populations under 20K that have 1600 people murdered each year. The average soldier in Iraq doesn't face odds like that. I don't know what percentage of violent crime in the US is attributable to drug trafficking, but the number is unlikely to be low.

There have been numerous incursions into the US that are well coordinated, and use superior firepower, including fully automatic weapons that have leaked out of Mexican and South American military regimes. The cartels are well-known to have RPGs, grenades, SFRLs, etc.

I am not saying that the cartel activity has elevated to the point of military action, but it's not far-off, and entirely conceivable.

I am also not suggesting that select-fire is some kind of panacea to ward off ruthless gang lords, but it is certainly not difficult to imagine an escalation of drug violence that would create a vast disparity in firepower that our founders sought to prevent.

But, in such a scenario we have challenges to meet long before the question of select-fire in private hands must be answered, such as how to train a citizenry to be willing and capable of first responder duties until professional forces could arrive. This means local governments allowing trained, screened citizen to carry as a ubiquitous presence, for the purposes of their own defense, especially along the border States who are most terrorized by the criminals.

The reason the cartels operate with such impunity, is partly because of corrupt intermingling with the Mexican government at all levels, and because the Mexican people have no right to keep and bear arms. The chance of a cartel operative being shot by an armed citizen at home in Mexico is near zero. In the US, it might be 30%.

We are so blessed to have enjoyed relative safety on US soil for much of our history. But we should lapse neither into paranoia, nor a false sense of security. We are as vulnerable as we allow ourselves to be, no more and no less.

Tyranny, and terrorism, come in many forms. In Mexico, along our borders, and in our inner cities, it takes the form of Mexican drug cartels. To permanently take select-fire off the table as an option for citizens trained to assist police, in whatever limited role, is a huge mistake and it is antithetical to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which in part, sought to prevent the disparity of force which always allows a tyrant to prevail.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Maestro,

I am a little confused by your post. I realize that in Mexico there is a horrendous lack of government protection for law-abiding citizens. I also realize that the very orgnizations (the army and the Mexican LEO establishment) are quite corrupt and in some cases preying on those they would protect. However, nothing within the realm of reality is happening here in the US and the above scenario in Mexico happening here is not believable.

Now you post:

There have been numerous incursions into the US that are well coordinated, and use superior firepower, including fully automatic weapons that have leaked out of Mexican and South American military regimes. The cartels are well-known to have RPGs, grenades, SFRLs, etc. I am not saying that the cartel activity has elevated to the point of military action, but it's not far-off, and entirely conceivable.

So are you saying that hordes of drug lord gangs will invade say, El Paso shooting up the city and trying to impose some type of tryanny on it's population and our military and LEO will just stand there or be overwhelmed by the criminals? I see you sort of jumping back and forth between Mexico and the US and there is a yawning gulf of reality between the two.

To permanently take select-fire off the table as an option for citizens trained to assist police, in whatever limited role, is a huge mistake and it is antithetical to the original meaning and intent of the Second Amendment, which in part, sought to prevent the disparity of force which always allows a tyrant to prevail.

Who says we are taking it off the table? The states may raise and arm a miltia if they so choose. Congress may not interfere. Further the states may arm said miltia with any type of military weapon they could buy or obtain (maybe not nukes or chem) if they so choose. However, YOU may not arm yourself without restriction like a state militia might based on your personal desire to own certain weapons without restriction. That is off the table by law I believe.

You know we could fabricate Red Dawn scenarios endlessly but the fact remains that the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right of the citizen to defend themselves personally by the use of weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes.

[maestro pistolero]

So are you saying that hordes of drug lord gangs will invade say, El Paso shooting up the city and trying to impose some type of tryanny on it's population and our military and LEO will just stand there or be overwhelmed by the criminals? I see you sort of jumping back and forth between Mexico and the US and there is a yawning gulf of reality between the two.

No. I thought my post was pretty clear that we are nowhere that scenario, although there have been border incidents where organized groups have entered the US for specific targets. The, threat in my view is in the violence that the far reaching tendrils of the of the drug trade propagates.

I agree with most of your post. There are still States that either restrict or deny 2A rights to the degree that the disparity of force creates a dangerous situation for law abiding folks. I'm not talking specifically about select-fire here.

Who says we are taking it off the table? The states may raise and arm a miltia if they so choose. Congress may not interfere. Further the states may arm said miltia with any type of military weapon they could buy or obtain (maybe not nukes or chem) if they so choose.
But they don't. Training citizens ought to be an on-going process. Perhaps not same level of training that, say, National Guard, because the role is different. Professional forces are always preferable, but can't be everywhere, all the time like citizens. That to me is the beauty of the Militia. A ubiquitous, first responding presence is a formidable deterrent to crime and terror.
However, YOU may not arm yourself without restriction like a state militia might based on your personal desire to own certain weapons without restriction. That is off the table by law I believe.

I do too. But there must be SOME path to do it legally. The Second Amendment is about preserving the balance of power between good and evil. Bans only enable the evil and restrict the good.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The, threat in my view is in the violence that the far reaching tendrils of the of the drug trade propagates.

And you think THAT violence requires full-auto? AN AR-15 or shotgun or good handgun won't stop that? Where is this stuff going on? In the barrio and what about that drug crime necessitates a civilian spraying full auto about?

But they don't. Training citizens ought to be an on-going process.

Have you wondered why that is that states don't really have trained functioning armed miltias anymore? I think it is because the common defense is not longer done by the militia and hasn't for 100 years. I think the common defense is done today by the military and LEOs. Personal defense is done by we citizens normally individually. The militia died for very practical reasons I think.

BTW as to being a "first responder form the militia", don't we have a lot of threads on here about the dangers of imposing ourselves into third party disputes and gun battles? Having the local "militiaman" intervene in some fracas with full auto no less might not be a good thing.

I do too. But there must be SOME path to do it legally.

There is. Have your state support it's miltia (good luck on that) or buy an FA and pay the tax if your state allows it and you are otherwise qualified. BTW restricted to me does not simply mean just a Brady Background Check. I am talking about the NFA and other state restritrictions and the lack thereof as unrestricted.

[maestro pistolero]

And you think THAT violence requires full-auto? AN AR-15 or shotgun or good handgun won't stop that? Sure they would. I'm not talking specifically about select-fire here. I guess you missed that part.
Where is this stuff going on? In the barrio and what about that drug crime necessitates a civilian spraying full auto about?
Come on TG, you know I don't mean that.

Let me be candid here. It's not that I think FA is some kind of magic voodoo that sends your enemy scurrying in fear. I'm way more concerned about the public's overall diminishing knowledge or basic ability to defend themselves and community (again, until professionals arrive) than whether or not our rifles have a selector switch on them. If the the bright line were codified that every non-prohibited person could have a semi-auto AR15, AK, with full mag capacity, etc., but not FA, I could accept that, but I don't agree with it. There are elements in out society and government that would deny even that capability.

I am only saying that there needs to be some kind path to ownership and competence with military small arms that satisfies the need for public safety, national security, and the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. This is only an academic discussion until and unless a real disastrous emergency occurs that overwhelms the professional forces. You must think that scenario is impossible to maintain your position on this. Is that really the point at which we should begin training and equipping citizens to assist? God help us.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

needs to be some kind path to ownership to military small arms that satisfies the need for public safety, national security, and the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment. This is only an academic discussion until and unless a real disastrous emergency occurs that overwhelms the professional forces. You must think that is impossible to maintain your position on this.

I guess that is true. In this day and age the sort of world here in the US where our society would break down to the state that normal citizens would need to own and be trained in the use of military small arms would be a living hell. At least based on what I have seen in places where that type of chaos exists. The militia served a great purpose in the 18th and early 19th century. But in the 21st I don't see it. Not with professional military and LEO. So, I guess I do not buy into any real scenario where we would need to form miltias for self defense outside or even inside government control. Just my opinion on that. The skeleton (thru the COTUS) is there to flesh one out if a state so desires but I do not believe we will ever see such and the longer time goes on the less I see the possibility.

[maestro pistolero]

Perhaps you are correct. We'll never have such a situation for the rest of history, and what could be better? But what's the harm in training a few fundamentals: Basic arms instruction, an awareness of command structure, when to assist, how not to interfere, how to identify and make yourself available to authorities, communication skills, etc.

Basic stuff for an emergency that we hope will never happen. I hope never to need my fire extinguisher, but I by-god know how to use it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

But what's the harm in training a few fundamentals: Basic arms instruction, an awareness of command structure, when to assist, how not to interfere, how to identify and make yourself available to authorities, communication skills, etc.

Nothing wrong with that!

[maestro pistolero]

Always a spirited discussion, TG! Thanks.

[USAFNoDak]

Though I agree that we are not anywhere close to a situation where we need to take up full auto or select fire arms to protect ourselves from an internal or external threat, I tend to look at this from a purely "politics vs. civil rights" perspective.

I personally don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between full auto and semiauto firearms, other than the mechanism that makes one pull the trigger repeatedly in the case of the semi auto. That is a tangent point. However, it has relevence to the subject of what arms the government can forbid us to have, and where that point falls on the line.

The fact that we have a virtual ban on select fire and full auto firearms led to us also having a ban on military style semi auto firearms at the national level. Thank God that law was put in place with a sunset clause and the liberal anti gun crowd couldn't get enough support to renew it for another 10 years or enact it full time with no sunset clause. There are several states which still have these bans in place; California for example.

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials. The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to, even though the USSC, in Heller, says that outright bans of "all" types of firearms in the home are unconstitutional. Still, the USSC doesn't say what types of firearms can be banned for home possession, or how many hurdles the government can put in place to make home possession of firearms so difficult as to "virtually" ban them.

Thus, for me, I look at the ban on full auto (at least those made or imported after 1986) as being a tool that the anti's can use in their march to banning as many firearms as is politically possible. The longer these types of bans stay in effect, the more the public accepts them as the norm, and the easier it is to move the ball down the field.

We've had some recent victories playing defense (Heller and the expiration of the AWB94), but we are still on defense in my opinion. Having a strong defense is good, but how long can we hold out without going on offense at least once in a while? That's my fear.

[maestro pistolero]

Well said, USAFNoDak. I maintain that there needs to be SOME path available to a law abiding, not-prohibited person from having one that doesn't include purchasing a $20k M16.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I personally don't believe there is a whole lot of difference between full auto and semiauto firearms, other than the mechanism that makes one pull the trigger repeatedly in the case of the semi auto. That is a tangent point.

I think there is a much larger spectrum there than you are acknowledging. What I find in many of these debates is that those who want full access to FA tend to exhibit in their case the "lowest common denominator" meaning the 3 round burst M-16 as opposed to say a M2 .50 cal., SAW or minigun because the 3-round burst M-16 seems a lot tamer than the others. All are FA and they are quite different from one another and are quite different than the semi-auto rifles in common use today. Then we get the "all except crew-served" reply. However, the term crew-served is a military term and does not mean that it takes two of more people to fire it. It just means that in a military organization more than one person may be assigned to it in operation mostly to help carry the ammo. Then it is no exploding ordinance but that too may be successfully carried and fired by a single person. On and on we go so I find it a better criteria to draw the bright line at FA.

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety. Just because they ban FA is just another step in the process. They would ban them all if they could and the NFA has not helped them ban other guns in any way I can see. They just say "we should ban these guns because" (take your pick) they are too small, too big, too ugly, too effcient, too whatever.

I think Heller when incorporated will prohibit states from banning weapons in common use by civilians for lawful purposes. That definitely include handguns and may or may not include AR-15 types or .50 BMG. We'll see.

but how long can we hold out without going on offense at least once in a while?

I would say Heller and McDonald are pretty offensive to the antis. CCW too. However, IMHO you can forget about FA, ain't happening either in the court or Congress or public opinion.

[maestro pistolero]

However, IMHO you can forget about FA, ain't happening either in the court or Congress or public opinion.

Let's not forget that they are legal RIGHT NOW, in most states. For the rich. The closing of the registration was a back-door, underhanded way to avoid appearing like they created a gun ban, which, in practical terms, they did. It's the difference between chopping off the frogs head, and slowly turning up the heat on the water pot. In the end the result is the same.

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto. Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.
Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety. Just because they ban FA is just another step in the process. They would ban them all if they could and the NFA has not helped them ban other guns in any way I can see. They just say "we should ban these guns because" (take your pick) they are too small, too big, too ugly, too effcient, too whatever.


They wish to ban guns because they don't like them or they think they are dangerous, etc. I agree. However, they consistently bring up the issue of machine guns when they discuss banning other types of firearms. As an example, they purposely tried to confuse the issue over semiautos vs. machine guns because they knew that the general public is "scared" of machine guns. Thus, if they could fool people into thinking that a semi auto is a "machine gun", it would help to ban the semi autos as well. That is a stated agenda by a notable anti gunner. I can provide the details if you'd like.

Also, look at things that John Kerry said when they were trying to renew the assault weapons ban. He said something to the effect that those are weapons of war and do not belong anywhere outside of a battlefield and certainly not on the streets of america. He said that if americans wanted to use assault weapons, which are weapons of war, there is a place for them, and it's called the US military, and we'd welcome you.

So, the facts and the statements by well known antis would seem to refute your claims that the antis don't try to use the issue of machine guns in their efforts to ban even more types of firearms.

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman posted:I think there is a much larger spectrum there than you are acknowledging. What I find in many of these debates is that those who want full access to FA tend to exhibit in their case the "lowest common denominator" meaning the 3 round burst M-16 as opposed to say a M2 .50 cal., SAW or minigun because the 3-round burst M-16 seems a lot tamer than the others. All are FA and they are quite different from one another and are quite different than the semi-auto rifles in common use today.

I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun. The minigun is a different story because there is no semiauto or other action style similar to it and it would seem very hard to handle by one individual, despite Jesse the Body Ventura in Predator. He was my former governor by the way, but I didn't think he was a top notch governor.

I agree that there is a broad spectrum of firearms available to the military, and whether civilians should have unlimited access to any and all of those is open for debate, due to the issue of the public safety involved. For instance, if you had live grenades and kept them in your highrise appartment complex, what is the collateral damage if one or more were to go off? We can take that debate into many avenues. I was more specifically referring to the difference between non ordnance, hand carriable, or portable firearms. Something as one might see a common infantry soldier carrying. I know that modern infantry soldiers can carry all sorts of things like mortars and such, but again, I was hoping to keep the debate on rifles and handguns.

[maestro pistolero]

I propose this for a future standard:
Complete 2A protection for small arms up to and including FA with heightened regulation for FA (Perhaps a greater level of training and screening would be appropriate for FA, but it has to be an achievable path for those not prohibited). And definitely not cost prohibitive for the average person. And if FA ends up outside of 2A protection, then apply this standard to everything below FA, and make the bright line as clear and unambiguous as possible.

[USAFNoDak]

I agree. We should allow FA with slightly more regulations. I would even allow for NRA/BATFE approved training courses, conducted by private, not government, instructors. Similar to how we do concealed carry permits in most states. And I'd also like to nationalize CC permits, if we must have them, so that Massachusetts must recognize Minnesota's permits as well as other states. We do that for driver's licenses and more people are killed via licensed automobile drivers than are killed by licensed concealed handgun carriers. Now criminal misuse is a totally different ball game, although the antis try to merge the two whenever they can get away with it.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, the facts and the statements by well known antis would seem to refute your claims that the antis don't try to use the issue of machine guns in their efforts to ban even more types of firearms.

Antis bring up FA because they know that the mention of them brings a visceral negative response from the public. They are not using machinegun regulation to get more of the same as much as they are lying to the public and telling them that non-FA is FA in order to scare them. It like using crime as a code word for race. However, you said:

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.

And I don't think they care one way or another about how these weapons (full or semi) operate rather that they want them all banned. I listened the other day to Denis Henigan of Brady and he conceded that people (even in other countries) are violent and have as much violence as we do in the USA. His point was that guns make violence more lethal and so if we reduce who can get guns it makes violence less lethal. He never mentioned FA and he didn't need to. Therefore, the fact that FA is regulated gives little if any momentum to the antis philosophically. The operation of the gun is not what drives their thinking.

I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun.

Having fired both, I would disagree fundamentally. There is no comparision between the destructiveness of a M2 machinegun and a Barrett rifle.

Complete 2A protection for small arms up to and including FA with heightened regulation for FA (Perhaps a greater level of training and screening would be appropriate for FA, but it has to be an achievable path for those not prohibited). And definitely not cost prohibitive for the average person.

Get rid of Hughes and you would have that but with training you would actually make FA more restricted than it is under the NFA.

And I'd also like to nationalize CC permits, if we must have them, so that Massachusetts must recognize Minnesota's permits as well as other states. We do that for driver's licenses and more people are killed via licensed automobile drivers than are killed by licensed concealed handgun carriers.

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO. That way it is stronger and harder for temporary national politicians to rescind. I prefer the way we do it now. State by state. TN has done a bangup job getting reciprocity in about 35 other states.

[zukiphile]

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO.

That is incorrect. See "full faith and credit". This doctrine of the federal constitution requires that many public documents rendered by one state be recognised as legitimate in all other states.

I would raise the issue of whether states still have the right to regulate the possession (not carry) of any sort small arm, since that area is already federally regulated. As a matter of policy we allow states to regulate possession (sort of the way California can still impose separate environmental restrictions on new automobiles even though that area is federally regulated), but the reasoning behind the interstate commerce clause would work against that local regulation.

[Al Norris]

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO.
That is incorrect. See "full faith and credit". This doctrine of the federal constitution requires that many public documents rendered by one state be recognised as legitimate in all other states.
TG has it exactly correct. Reciprocity, State by State was the driving force behind your being able to drive in any other State with your issued license.

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution does not figure into this at all. If it did, then why does a licensed plumber from Texas, require a New York plumbers license to ply his trade in New York? Or an Electrician? A Barber? An Attorney?

[zukiphile]

The "Full Faith and Credit" clause of the US Constitution does not figure into this at all. If it did, then why does a licensed plumber from Texas, require a New York plumbers license to ply his trade in New York? Or an Electrician? A Barber? An Attorney?


Even an attorney, who is an officer of the state courts, does not need a NY license to practice in NY so long as the court in which he appears accepts his motion pro hac vice.

Presumably, not every license is fungible. There have been historical instances of agricultural states permitting the very young to operate machinery on roads with licenses that were not comparable to those granted in more urban states. Now DL requirements largely are similar and don't fall within any of the public policy exceptions for FF&C or 28 U.S.C. § 1738. Until recent changes in the marriage laws of some states, FF&C wasn't an issue with respect to certificates of marriage. That DL administration is largely handled through an interstate compact does not mean that FF&C do not apply. Even drivers from states who are not member of the compact can legally drive in non-compact states.

I am aware of no current public policy argument against granting FF&C to DLs of other states. Are you?

[USAFNoDak]

TG posted in response to me:

Antis bring up FA because they know that the mention of them brings a visceral negative response from the public. They are not using machinegun regulation to get more of the same as much as they are lying to the public and telling them that non-FA is FA in order to scare them. It like using crime as a code word for race. However, you said:


Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.

And I don't think they care one way or another about how these weapons (full or semi) operate rather that they want them all banned. I listened the other day to Denis Henigan of Brady and he conceded that people (even in other countries) are violent and have as much violence as we do in the USA. His point was that guns make violence more lethal and so if we reduce who can get guns it makes violence less lethal. He never mentioned FA and he didn't need to. Therefore, the fact that FA is regulated gives little if any momentum to the antis philosophically. The operation of the gun is not what drives their thinking.

You are correct that the antis don't care how the firearms operate, they want them banned. But they have to come up with "reasonable" demands to ban them. Even if they don't explicity say it, they know that the public has generally accepted the ban on full autos. Thus, if they can make semiautos and handguns appear to be as dangerous as full autos, they are convinced that the public may generally support the semi auto and handgun bans as well. They may not explicity say they want to ban handguns because it's acceptable to ban machine guns, but they go about it in a round about way. After "Heller", which was about handguns, the antis were already claiming that the USSC reaffirmed the government's "right" to ban dangerous weapons. I can't recall who said it, but they said that the USSC certainly was not giving the green light to own machine guns in their findings on Heller. Thus, handguns, which are also dangerous, may also be banned if the USSC declares them to be "dangerous and not in common use at the time". Handguns certainly are not in common use by the law abiding in D.C. We all know that.

What they do is make the claim that guns which are too dangerous, such as handguns and assault weapons, can be banned outright. They always then point to the banning of machine guns and tell us that this has been an accepted practice since 1939 and never hesitate to refer to US vs. Miller. They try to make the pro gun rights folks look radical by saying things such as, "I suppose you want to legalize machine guns too". We all know they are "legal" if they are of a certain vintage and if you jump through the hoops to own one that fits the vintage, but that's beside the point.

If you don't think the antis use the fact that machine guns have been "illegal" since 1939 to further the idea that the government has not only a "right", but a duty to ban other more dangerous firearms such as assault weapons and handguns, you aren't paying enough attention to the battle.


Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
I don't see a lot of difference between a Barrett (sp?) .50 cal and a .50 cal machine gun, except that you can fire more rounds in a shorter amount of time with the machine gun.
Having fired both, I would disagree fundamentally. There is no comparision between the destructiveness of a M2 machinegun and a Barrett rifle.

If you get hit by 1 round from a Barrett .50 cal, are you any less likely to die than getting hit from 1 round of a M2? The M2 can more quickly dump rounds on any particular target, which may give it more destructive power in a shorter period of time. I'll grant you that. But the Barrett .50 cal is no slouch when it comes to busting through some material, even with 1 round. Why do the antis want to ban them? Because the anti's claim the Barrett .50 cal has too much destructiveness.





Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
And I'd also like to nationalize CC permits, if we must have them, so that Massachusetts must recognize Minnesota's permits as well as other states. We do that for driver's licenses and more people are killed via licensed automobile drivers than are killed by licensed concealed handgun carriers.

You know that driver's license reciprocity is not driven by the fed? The states did it individually which is better IMO. That way it is stronger and harder for temporary national politicians to rescind. I prefer the way we do it now. State by state. TN has done a bangup job getting reciprocity in about 35 other states.

Well, I'd be all for letting the states do it, but we all know that several of them will never agree. NY, CA, IL, and several other Nordeastern states would probably never agree. If they would, then I'd agree with you that the states taking care of it would be the better solution.

[Yellowfin]

^ PRECISELY, NoDAK. It is exactly that very reason, to the very detail as you perfectly describe it, why we must be 100% committed to educating the public of this reality, especially in the states that still have '94 AWB style laws still in place. Debunking the myth that it has anything at all to do with safety is personal priority of mine in pro 2A efforts, and I'm working as much as I can to build up our NYS site NYShooters.net to get that message out. It is simply mind blowing just how horribly anti gun laws set into the mind of the public and how many people simply don't know any better. They won't know better unless we inform them.

[Hkmp5sd]

why does a licensed plumber from Texas, require a New York plumbers license to ply his trade in New York? Or an Electrician? A Barber? An Attorney?


Same reason states do not accept each others hunting or fishing licenses.

Money.

[fiddletown]

Even an attorney, who is an officer of the state courts, does not need a NY license to practice in NY so long as the court in which he appears accepts his motion pro hac vice....Except such motions are granted only for a particular case, and in most states the out-of-state lawyer must associate a locally licensed lawyer.

[zukiphile]

Except such motions are granted only for a particular case, and in most states the out-of-state lawyer must associate a locally licensed lawyer.

Indeed, and there are sound reasons for those requirements, not to mention maintaining the authority of any state court system in regulating who can practice in it. As we see often from discussions here, laws can vary from one state to another very considerably.

There are no similarly important issues of public policy that militate against honoring a certificate of a conventional marriage or a driver's license issued by another state.

[fiddletown]

Indeed, and there are sound reasons for those requirements, not to mention maintaining the authority of any state court system in regulating who can practice in it. As we see often from discussions here, laws can vary from one state to another very considerably.

There are no similarly important issues of public policy that militate against honoring a certificate of a conventional marriage or a driver's license issued by another state.True enough. I was just pointing out that the examples aren't parallel.

[Webleymkv]

The problem I see with national CCL reciprocity is this: in order for such a thing to work, there would have to be some standardization in the laws, particularly in the requirements to obtain a license. It doesn't seem as though many who demand national reciprocity realize the degree of variances.

Currently, there are far too many variances in current CCL requirements between the various states. For example, my home state of Indiana is a shall issue state, has no training requirement, and has a minimum age of 18 years old. Many other states require not only some sort of training, but the amount and type of training vary from state to state. While some states require only a few hours of classroom type training, many other require a multi-day course with live-fire exercise and minimum accuracy standards. The lack of a training requirement was the reason given by ohio for not honoring Indiana's CCL (though we call it a LTCH here as open carry is legal). Likewise, while most states have a minimum age of 21, this is not universally so as Indiana, Vermont, and Alaska all allow CC at the age of 18 (though no license is required in Vermont or Alaska) and if I'm not mistaken at least one state had a minimum age of 23 years old at one time. Finally, there is the issue of may issue states which require an applicant to provide a reason for wanting a CCL or approval of the local Chief LEO.

Driver's licenses, on the other hand, are fairly uniform from state to state. Nearly all states have a minimum age of 16, a certain period that one may only drive in the company of an already licensed driver, similar requirements from proof of identification, and a test of proficiency prior to issuing the license. Similarly, the traffic laws are fairly uniform across the country unlike the carry laws. Where, how, and what you may carry varies greatly across state lines. For example, Texas has two licenses allowing carry of either a revolver or both revolver and semi-automatic, many states mandate that a holster of some sort must be used while others do not, and restrictions on carrying in places such as alcohol-serving establishments, public places like parks, and college campuses vary greatly from state to state. While ignorance of the law is no excuse, the great degree of variance would make it nearly impossible for the average CCL holder to ensure he or she stays on the right side of the law in whatever state he or she may travel to.

My concern with national CCL reciprocity would be how to decide where to set the standard. At the national level, the only way I would see for CCL reciprocity to work would be to mandate a starndardized set of CCL laws for all the states. My fear is that such a set of nation-wide CCL laws would default to those of the most restrictive states. While I would be willing to tolerate slightly more restrictive laws here in Indiana such as some sort of training requirement, I would be vehemently opposed to say Massachussetts-type requirements. Simply stated, I distrust too many members of the "Grand Old Asylum" (Congress) such as Schumer, Feinstein, Boxer, Pelosi, and McCarthy to let them have input in my state's CCL laws.

I agree with TG that the best way to go about achieving nationwide CCL-reciprocity is to have an agreement between all 50 states. However, before that can reasonably happen, there is a lot of work that needs to be done within many states. First, we still need to get CC in Illinois and Wisconsin. Next, we need to convert the may-issue states into shall-issue states and bring the most restrictive states more into line with the mainstream. After that, we can start ironing out the details of a nationwide agreement.

[maestro pistolero]

Excellent points, everyone, but perhaps we could nudge this back on topic.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If you don't think the antis use the fact that machine guns have been "illegal" since 1939 to further the idea that the government has not only a "right", but a duty to ban other more dangerous firearms such as assault weapons and handguns, you aren't paying enough attention to the battle.

Maybe I am not paying attention but I don't believe as you say that the NFA gives much PR ammunition to the antis. The public looks very differently at a handgun vice a machingun and consider machineguns much more dangerous and not needed. Handguns are a different matter. Most Joe Civilians know the difference between. I have never heard a Brady or anti say: "Well we heavily regulate machine guns so we should do the same with shotguns" Won't work. Maybe firearms to cars will work better but I don't think the NFA plays into the debate today UNLESS somebody (I won't mention any names ;)) starts talking about deregulating access to FA, THEN you will hear them chirp! :barf:

[Glenn E. Meyer]

The research shows that different types of firearms have differential abilities to cue varying negative attitudes. While it hasn't been tested with Fully Auto guns vs. others, it's clear that for the average person - military derivative guns (like the ARs) are seen as more negative.

That's why we have efforts by folks like the NSSF to emphasize the 'sports' nature of the AR platform - although that has a danger in emphasizing guns as sporting tools - a position which is not a real civil right.

[zukiphile]

That's why we have efforts by folks like the NSSF to emphasize the 'sports' nature of the AR platform - although that has a danger in emphasizing guns as sporting tools - a position which is not a real civil right.


While I agree that sport isn't the basis of the right, I don't see a real downside to a sporting use that publicizes arms to the culture in a benign light.

As interesting as we find constitutional and legal positions, I imagine that fewer than 1% of the population is really moved by them. The underlying problem is cultural, i.e. the growth of a culture that seeks for us all a child-proofed, danger free and care free environment. Sports can be the thin end of a wedge that undermines the poor image of arms painted over the last several decades.

That's part of the reason I try to introduce anyone with any interest in shooting to a .22lr. It makes a relatively unthreatening gateway arm. I would also like to see urban .22lr only ranges to which minors could have supervised access. That could remove the forbidden fruit aspect of the weirder aspects of gun culture, while destigmatising use amongst those whose hysteria arises from unfamiliarity.

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentleman responded to me with:

Maybe I am not paying attention but I don't believe as you say that the NFA gives much PR ammunition to the antis. The public looks very differently at a handgun vice a machingun and consider machineguns much more dangerous and not needed. Handguns are a different matter. Most Joe Civilians know the difference between. I have never heard a Brady or anti say: "Well we heavily regulate machine guns so we should do the same with shotguns" Won't work. Maybe firearms to cars will work better but I don't think the NFA plays into the debate today UNLESS somebody (I won't mention any names ) starts talking about deregulating access to FA, THEN you will hear them chirp!

I easily found an example regarding the Heller case and have posted it for us here, from this link:

http://www.nationalgunrights.org/truthaboutheller.shtml

D.C.'s anti-gun Mayor Adrian Fenty believes that Heller's .45 ACP pistol is no different than a machine gun, since it is loaded by a magazine. D.C. bans even legal machine guns, so they believe it is perfectly reasonable to also ban pistols that are magazine-fed.

While this is not totally related to the federal ban on machine guns, it gives us a window into the minds of the antis and how they DO link machine gun bans to bans on other weapons. I'll see if I can find some more examples, but I'm sort of busy today, so I may not get to it in a timely fashion.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

USAFNoDak,

This site you link to has some rather bizarre comments from it's "director" Dudley Brown. Seems like he thinks Heller has done a lot more harm than good. I question your source and the National Assocation for Gun Rights. Are they in bed with the "Oath Keepers"?:eek: Follow the money....

Nevertheless your quote:

While this is not totally related to the federal ban on machine guns, it gives us a window into the minds of the antis and how they DO link machine gun bans to bans on other weapons.

Seems to make the point for me. That is the antis try to call certain firearms "machineguns" to scare people into banning them. I don't think that has anything to do with the NFA but rather the public's fear of such weapons. Therefore, the fear of these weapons is the motivation not the NFA which Fenty never mentioned. It is a city law that defines semiautos as such not the NFA. This is not related to the NFA at all.

You haven't made your case that the NFA gives any kind of license or motivation to the antis to ban semiautos.

[zukiphile]

I question your source and the National Assocation for Gun Rights. Are they in bed with the "Oath Keepers"? Follow the money....


Tennessee Gentleman, how does that standard apply to your use of ADL links?

D.C.'s anti-gun Mayor Adrian Fenty believes that Heller's .45 ACP pistol is no different than a machine gun, since it is loaded by a magazine. D.C. bans even legal machine guns, so they believe it is perfectly reasonable to also ban pistols that are magazine-fed.


"Machine guns" are burdened with the stigma of near illegality. Fenty utilises the stigma in an effort to defend a ban on Heller's .45ACP by alleging the lack of meaningful difference between a "machine gun" and Heller's pistol. Thus the stigma of NFA status is spread to an ordinary pistol.

[USAFNoDak]

Q. What is the difference between an automatic and a semi-automatic weapon?

A. An automatic weapon (machine gun) will continue to fire as long as the trigger is depressed (or until the ammunition magazine is emptied). A semi-automatic weapon will fire one round and instantly load the next round with each pull of the trigger. Semi-automatic firearms fire as rapidly as you can depress your finger.

This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.


This looks to me to be an equating of semiautomatic "military-style" "assault-weapons" and machine guns. They talk about how tightly controlled machine guns are regulated and then argue that semi automatic versions are not.

This looks like the perfect example of where they use the acceptance of "bans" on machine guns to try and further a ban on semiautomatics, including some semiautomatic handguns. All they have to do is equate the dangers and then ask: "Why, if the US has tightly regulated and virtually banned machine guns, do we not ban semi automatic weapons as well, since they are almost as dangerous?".

That is exactly the original point I was making.

[USAFNoDak]

Glenn E. Meyer posted:

That's why we have efforts by folks like the NSSF to emphasize the 'sports' nature of the AR platform - although that has a danger in emphasizing guns as sporting tools - a position which is not a real civil right.


And we have equal efforts by the Brady Center and other like minded anti gun groups to educate the public on why firearms, such as the AR platform, are not suited for sporting use. Cripes, Jim Zumbo (sp?) got caught in the same lie, and he is one of our guys, or at least we thought he was.

I agree with you on the danger of us accepting "sporting purposes" as a sole reason to allow certain types of firearms for civilian possession while disallowing others. That has potential to hang us with our own ropes in the long run. Slippery slope and what not, old boy. (not directed at you, Glenn)

[USAFNoDak]

Tennessee Gentlemann apparently took issue with the website I used to show how Mayor Fenty of D.C. equates semiautomatic handguns with machine guns. I just pulled it from Google. I didn't research the website itself. I had read other pieces in the past that basically said the same thing so I ran with it.

But that's OK, if you want to shoot the messenger, maybe you'd be more willing to settle for the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/26/AR2008062603988_pf.html

In a move that could rile supporters of yesterday's ruling, Nickles said the District will continue to enforce a separate decades-old D.C. ban on the possession of most clip-loaded semiautomatic handguns, which are popular with gun enthusiasts.

That regulation, which outlaws machine guns and was not part of the Supreme Court case, defines a machine gun in broad terms, encompassing semiautomatic weapons that can shoot, or be converted to shoot, more than 12 rounds without reloading, officials said. Nickles said that law remains on the books and will be enforced.

"You cannot go out today, if you have a handgun, and carry it around," Nickles said. "This is not open season with handguns. We are going to strictly regulate the registration of handguns. And there will be no authorization of automatics or semiautomatics."

Again, this doesn't explicity discuss the NFA, but it certainly is a part and parcel of using the ban on machine guns to push for further bans on guns which are not machine guns, by equating those guns to machine guns. See my previous post on how the Brady's have done exactly that.

Yes, they want to ban guns for the sake of banning guns. But they need to create the image of how dangerous those guns can be so they equate them to machine guns. They are relying on the fact, as you have agreed, that the general public has been "educated" on the dangers of machine guns and have accepted the ban on them. Heck, I'm guessing the majority of the public doesn't even realize that a civilian can own a machine gun if certain conditions are met. They believe ALL machine guns are illegal for civilians. The antis use this ignorance of the current laws to try and nudge acceptance of more bans by trying to make other types of guns appear to be just as dangerous as machine guns. Again, see my above post regarding the Brady Center. They are an excellent example of just such a tactic.

[USAFNoDak]

Zukiphile posted:"Machine guns" are burdened with the stigma of near illegality. Fenty utilises the stigma in an effort to defend a ban on Heller's .45ACP by alleging the lack of meaningful difference between a "machine gun" and Heller's pistol. Thus the stigma of NFA status is spread to an ordinary pistol.


You have made the connection. Even if the law in D.C. is not a federal law, but a local one, it most likely was a follow on to the NFA34. They just went one step further and said, "NO MACHINE GUNS, PERIOD!", since the NFA and FOPA86 allow for possession under certain conditions.

All that being said, just look at how the Brady Center handles their argument for banning semiautomatic "assault weapons". They specifically refer to the NFA and FOPA.

[USAFNoDak]

When you look at the Brady Center's take on banning assault weapons, they try to point out just how close those assault weapons are to full auto military style weapons. Some gun owners say that FA is nothing like SA and thus it's OK to ban FA, but not SA. They argue with fellow gun owners about how folks like the Brady's don't try to use the NFA to further bans on semiautomatic firearms, rather than pointing out how the Brady's and like minded anti gun groups do indeed try to make the comparison on how alike, from a public danger standpoint, FA and SA are. In my opinion, that comparison has everything to do with how the NFA has been totally woven into the fabric of gun control acceptance by the American public. The anti-gunners are trying to leverage that acceptance by making other guns sound just as dangerous, so bans on those will also be accepted. The Brady's lay it out there for us to see, if we are paying attention.

[USAFNoDak]

One more example of anti gunners (34 members of the US House of Representatives, including Stark) using the NFA34 (Oh, the irony) to further the ban on semiautomatics.

http://a2dems.net/terms.htm

In fact, many people may not remember this, but long before Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) got her semi-auto ban signed into law in 1994, Congressman Pete Stark (D-CA) introduced a bill in 1989 that would have outlawed possession of a semi-automatic firearm unless the owner had an NFA license - the same stringent requirement needed to own a full-automatic firearm in America today. And Stark's bill - which had support from 33 other Representatives of both major parties - also contained the new moniker. "Assault weapons are not traditional hunting weapons," Stark told Congress. "Assault weapons have no practical value to a civilized society."



Here's Pete Stark introducing his bill:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?r101:H01MR9-116:

•Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of 33 other Members from both parties, including 18 from California, I am introducing today a bill which treats semiautomatic assault weapons in exactly the same manner as current law for full automatic machineguns.

•Assault weapons are not traditional hunting weapons. Assault weapons have no practical value to a civilized society.

•If anyone can tell me why the AK-47, the Uzi, the MAC-10, the TEC-9 shouldn't be treated in the same way that full automatic machineguns, please come forward.

•Our pragmatic approach bans the future importation and domestic manufacture of a specific list of semiautomatic assault weapons, including the AK-47, the Uzi, the MAC-10, the TEC-9 and several other assault weapons recommended as the weapons of choice of drug dealers, violent criminals, and terrorists. Current ownership is grandfathered, with future purchasers required to go through the same steps as those for fully automatic machineguns: a background check and approval from local police, registration of the weapon, and payment of a $200 transfer tax.

•These assault weapons are found in the cities of Beirut, Tripoli, and Johannesburg. They shouldn't be the drug dealer's weapons of choice the cities of Los Angeles, Oakland, or even Des Moines, IA.

•Assault weapons are weapons of war; assault weapons are the weapons of drug dealers and violent criminals, they are the weapons of terrorists and psychopaths.

•Enough is enough. It is time to close the loophole in the law and stand by the side of law enforcement, before more psychos mow down the next schoolyard.

Note: Emboldening is mine.

Gee, it sure looks to me, on it's face, as though the NFA34 has indeed been used by anti gunners to further their agenda of banning even more firearms by equating semiautomatics to full autos with regard to public safety.

And look, Mr. Stark believes anyone who would own/possess an "assault weapon" is UNCIVILIZED. I feel so dirty now. NOT!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

All that being said, just look at how the Brady Center handles their argument for banning semiautomatic "assault weapons". They specifically refer to the NFA and FOPA.

Do you have a source for that? I have not heard the Bradys say "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". Didn't they fight FOPA and try to use the Hughes Amendment to poison it?

When you look at the Brady Center's take on banning assault weapons, they try to point out just how close those assault weapons are to full auto military style weapons.

Yes they do but that points up what I said earlier about misinforming the public about the operation of the gun. Brady knows that most non-gun owning folk look at an M-16 which an AR-15 looks like and think machinegun because of what they have seen on movies. They look that same but operate differently

I think you still have not made your case (Pete Stark and a bill that went the way of HR25 notwithstanding) that the NFA gives antis reason to "ban" other weapons. For one the NFA does not "ban" machineguns but only regulates them. Even the bill Stark proposed didn't ban semi-autos.

I know you despise the 1934 NFA but it is not the raison d'être of all gun control efforts. I think the issue with assault weapons that the antis try to exploit is that they look a lot like military automatic weapons and the visceral fear most americans have of FA. I don't think most americans (even many who own guns)even know what the 1934 NFA is or even less likely the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA.

I think you are confusing the NFA which regulates the possession of FA which most of the public supports but really do not know much more than "machineguns are unnecessary and should be regulated heavily" with the intentional misrepresentation of other firearms (like the AR-15) as FA by the antis.

[zukiphile]

I think you are confusing the NFA which regulates the possession of FA which most of the public supports but really do not know much more than "machineguns are unnecessary and should be regulated heavily" with the intentional misrepresentation of other firearms (like the AR-15) as FA by the antis.

USAFNoDak does not appear to be confusing the two, but is noting that the near ban of some items is used as reasoning for near bans of other items.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:Do you have a source for that? I have not heard the Bradys say "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". Didn't they fight FOPA and try to use the Hughes Amendment to poison it?


The source is the Brady Center website. I copied and pasted directly from there. You are trying to change the playing field. I don't believe that I stated that the Bradys' said "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". What I've been trying to say is that they do use the NFA/FOPA to try and justify other gun bans. That's plain as day from their website which I copied and pasted.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/legislation/msassaultweapons

Click on FAQ and scroll down to the difference between full auto and semiauto. That's where they give up the goods.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:Yes they do but that points up what I said earlier about misinforming the public about the operation of the gun. Brady knows that most non-gun owning folk look at an M-16 which an AR-15 looks like and think machinegun because of what they have seen on movies. They look that same but operate differently

I think you still have not made your case (Pete Stark and a bill that went the way of HR25 notwithstanding) that the NFA gives antis reason to "ban" other weapons. For one the NFA does not "ban" machineguns but only regulates them. Even the bill Stark proposed didn't ban semi-autos.


They specifically refer to the fact that machine guns are highly regulated and after 1986 are banned for civilians, and that there is no such ban on semi auto assault weapons which they claim are almost as dangerous as machine guns. I don't know how it could be any more clear, unless you just don't want to see it or admit it. I rest my case and will let the readers judge who is right. I think I have Zukiphile on board.

Stark was not trying to strictly ban semi autos, but regulate them just as tightly as machine guns are. Thus, he was using the machine gun ban to further regulate semi autos. Machine guns weren't banned at first either by the NFA. They were later banned by the FOPA if they were made after 1986 or imported thereafter. That's a virtual ban if not an outright one. You don't think the antis would have used Starks bill as a stepping stone to tighten the regulation into a virtual ban, as was done with machine guns? I could certainly smell that rat coming down his hole.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:

I know you despise the 1934 NFA but it is not the raison d'être of all gun control efforts. I think the issue with assault weapons that the antis try to exploit is that they look a lot like military automatic weapons and the visceral fear most americans have of FA. I don't think most americans (even many who own guns)even know what the 1934 NFA is or even less likely the 1986 Hughes Amendment to the FOPA.

This is putting words in my mouth. I don't despise the NFA, but I do think it is a wrong headed piece of legislation which has not been of much value, if any. I also never said, or even implied, that the NFA is the raison d'être for all gun control efforts. It is, however, one angle the antis do employ at times, as I've shown.

The antis do specifically use the confusion over SA vs. FA. I've already agreed with that. They know the public is against machine guns and that the public is under the assumption (due to the NFA and their misunderstanding of what that law really means) that machine guns are no-no's because they are too dangerous. So, if they can convince the public that semiautos are just as dangerous, they are assuming the public will support bans, or very tight restrictions, which will eventually lead to bans, including virtual bans on semiautomatics. For you see, if the public is under the assumption that something is banned by federal law, most won't even bother to explore the possibilities of possessing such a thing. This helps the antis cause.

I think you are confusing the NFA which regulates the possession of FA which most of the public supports but really do not know much more than "machineguns are unnecessary and should be regulated heavily" with the intentional misrepresentation of other firearms (like the AR-15) as FA by the antis.


I'm not confusing anything. I stand by my claim that the antis use existing laws to pile on, and this includes the NFA. The Brady web site provides a very clear example of this with regards to semiautomatic "assault weapons".

[USAFNoDak]

Zukiphile:USAFNoDak does not appear to be confusing the two, but is noting that the near ban of some items is used as reasoning for near bans of other items.


Good summation of my point, Zukiphile. I think it's pretty clear from the Brady's own website and the law which Pete Stark and 33 other anti gun house members tried to get passed. The fact that they weren't successful doesn't diminish the fact that they tried to equate semiautomatic "assault weapons" with machine guns in an attempt to further their gun control agenda. They specifically referred to the laws governing machine guns and how those same laws should apply to "assault weapons". As the green clad door man in OZ said, "It's as plain as the nose on my face!"

[maestro pistolero]

Hasn't the closing of the registration done exponentially more to practically restrict FA ownership than the NFA? A class 3 tax stamp is 200 bucks, but a FA M16 can be 20K due to scarcity.

[USAFNoDak]

Earlier I posted this:The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to.....

During another court case on firearms, didn't one of the federal government's own lawyers also make the claim that the federal government could ban any firearms it wanted to? I seem to recall that being the case. I can't recall the case however, or the situation. Maybe someone can help out there. I seem to recall the judge or judges reacting rather negatively to that statement.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I don't believe that I stated that the Bradys' said "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". What I've been trying to say is that they do use the NFA/FOPA to try and justify other gun bans.

I think you contradicted yourself above.

In post 175 you said

The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.

then I said

Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety.

Again, I do not believe the antis care about the operation of the firearm and their motivation for banning any and all guns is that they feel ALL guns are dangerous to public safety. In the sentences after your first quote you then jump to:

]Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

So now its not that they are FA or semi-auto but that they cost too little?

Thus, for me, I look at the ban on full auto (at least those made or imported after 1986) as being a tool that the anti's can use in their march to banning as many firearms as is politically possible.

This you haven't shown IMO. Regardless I think we can both agree that the antis want to ban guns.

I do not believe nor do I believe you have shown that just because FA is regulated and further limited by the Hughes Amendment that necessarily means other gun prohibitions will be easier to achieve or for them to use say the NFA as a tool to further restrict guns.

I believe they call that argument a "slippery slope fallacy". Here's a good read on that: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm and from a gun rights supporter!

they tried to equate semiautomatic "assault weapons" with machine guns in an attempt to further their gun control agenda.

And were they Saturday Night Specials too?;)

[USAFNoDak]

The anti's believe the government can ban any sort of firearms they wish to

Here's a great example from the Emerson vs the United States court case (5th Circuit Court)

http://www.claremont.org/projects/pageid.1753/default.asp

Any doubts about the current administration's views on the question were erased during the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court hearings last June in the case of Emerson v. United States. There, in a New Orleans federal courtroom, the following exchange took place between the administration's attorney, William B. Mateja, and one member of the three judge panel:



Judge William L. Garwood: "You are saying that the Second Amendment is consistent with a position that you can take guns away from the public? You can restrict ownership of rifles, pistols and shotguns from all people? Is that the position of the United States?"
Assistant U.S. Attorney William B. Mateja: "Yes."

Judge Garwood: "Is it the position of the United States that persons who are not in the National Guard are afforded no protections under the Second Amendment?"

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mateja: "Exactly."




I believe this took place in June of 2000, during the Clinton Administration and with Gore running for Prez.

[USAFNoDak]

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
I don't believe that I stated that the Bradys' said "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". What I've been trying to say is that they do use the NFA/FOPA to try and justify other gun bans.

I think you contradicted yourself above.

No. I never stated that the Bradys explicity said; "Because of the NFA/FOPA we can ban other guns". They have never come out and said that. However, as I showed from their website, they do use the NFA to try and justify a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons". No contradiction there.

In post 175 you said


Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
The antis take the position that since the government can regulate and ban full auto, they can also regulate and ban semi auto.

then I said


Quote:
Disagree. I don't think antis believe such. They wish to ban guns because they think they are dangerous to public safety.

Again, I do not believe the antis care about the operation of the firearm and their motivation for banning any and all guns is that they feel ALL guns are dangerous to public safety. In the sentences after your first quote you then jump to:


Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
]Using this line of reasoning, the government can then ban handguns which are semi auto and can ban handguns which cost too little, as is the case with saturday night specials.

So now its not that they are FA or semi-auto but that they cost too little?

I threw in the Saturday Night Specials merely to show how widespread their reasoning is to ban firearms. They are too dangerous. They are too cheap. They look scarey, etc. But, as I keep saying, the antis believe they can ban anything. It's just a matter of which particular reason they use at any one time. In some cases, they will rely on machine guns being banned because they are too dangerous, and then make other types of guns out to be just as dangerous, in hopes of pushing for a ban or at least very tight regulations which would amount to a virtual ban. I have repeatedly agreed with you that the antis want to ban guns because they feel all guns are too dangerous. But they can't rely on that alone, since they are also scared of the second amendment, especially after Heller. But, they figure they can sway public perception if they can equate the danger in one type of firearm which isn't banned or tightly regulated, to the danger in a firearm which is banned or tightly regulated. See The Brady's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
Thus, for me, I look at the ban on full auto (at least those made or imported after 1986) as being a tool that the anti's can use in their march to banning as many firearms as is politically possible.

This you haven't shown IMO. Regardless I think we can both agree that the antis want to ban guns.

I do not believe nor do I believe you have shown that just because FA is regulated and further limited by the Hughes Amendment that necessarily means other gun prohibitions will be easier to achieve or for them to use say the NFA as a tool to further restrict guns.

I believe they call that argument a "slippery slope fallacy". Here's a good read on that: http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/slippery.htm and from a gun rights supporter!

I have shown how the Brady's have done exactly what you say they haven't done. You're bluffing with a pair of 7's? :D

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
they tried to equate semiautomatic "assault weapons" with machine guns in an attempt to further their gun control agenda.

And were they Saturday Night Specials too?

Saturday Night; Sunday Night; whatever it takes. :cool:

[USAFNoDak]

From the Brady website:

This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.


What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"? It seems clear as a Minnesota spring-fed lake to me.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"? It seems clear as a Minnesota spring-fed lake to me.

I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.

OK, well I think we are talking past each other. I still say you are confusing the NFA law with the public's fear of FA, a fear they do not have of other weapons and why I believe the AWB was not renewed and probably won't be soon. I would take a look at that link I left about the slippery slope, I think you are falling into that trap.

BTW I never bluff :cool:

[zukiphile]

I would take a look at that link I left about the slippery slope, I think you are falling into that trap.


To note that an adversary ignores real distinctions when making an argument for a ban is not a slippery slope. It notes the employment of a slippery slope in some gun ban arguments.

I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.


Emphasis added.

Since the NFA pertains to "machine guns", an argument for a near ban on items likened to a machine gun will have something to do with an existing framework that nearly bans "machine guns".

That point would only appear to be difficult to follow if one's position requires it to be difficult to follow.

[USAFNoDak]

I posted: (From the Brady Center Website)This means that a semi-automatic fires a little more slowly than an automatic, but not much more slowly. When San Jose, California police test-fired an UZI, a 30-round magazine was emptied in slightly less than two seconds on full automatic while the same magazine was emptied in just five seconds on semi-automatic.

Ownership of machine guns has been tightly controlled since passage of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and their manufacture for the civilian market was halted in 1986. However, semi-automatic versions of those same guns are still being produced.

What are the Brady's doing here, TG? How do you argue that they are not using the NFA and FOPA in an attempt to also ban or virtually ban semiautomatic "assault weapons"?


TG responded:I think the NFA has nothing to do with what they are saying. They are trying to confuse people into thinking that "assault weapons" are machine guns because they fire "almost" as fast. The key element IMO in their appeal is that these guns are as dangerous as machineguns that the public will think of as miniguns or M2s etc.


The NFA has everything to do with what they are saying, which is why they specificially mention it in their statement. They are pointing out how they feel that SA "assault weapons" are ALMOST as dangerous as machine guns. They probably feel that they are. So what? But they could have just left it at that if that's the only point they were trying to make. But wait, there's more!

What the Brady's are implying in their statement is "Gee, we ban machine guns and have tightly regulated them since 1934 and have banned possession of new machine guns since 1986. Since semi automatic 'assault weapons' are almost as dangerous, why shouldn't we ban those as well?"

They specifically mention the NFA and allude to the Hughes ammendment of 1986. First they equate the danger of the two (FA and SA). In that, you are correct and I agree with you. But then, they make the jump to pointing out how machine guns are banned but SA "assault weapons" are not. This is trying to further their agenda to ban SA "assault weapons". They may not ever get it done, but that was never my point. They are attempting to use the ban on machine guns, coupled with them pointing out how SA "assault weapons" are almost as dangerous as machine guns in an attempt to convince the reader that SA "assault weapons" should be banned as well. It's very easy to figure that out just by reading what they say, and having some cursory knowledge of their agenda.

But, as you mentioned, you don't feel that's the case. So be it. I'm willing to bet that many others can see what the Brady's are up to and it includes equating the dangerous nature of SA "assault weapons" with machine guns, which are banned, in the hopes of convincing people to help push for a ban on SA "assault weapons" as well.

After yesterday's shooting in St. Louis, you can bet the Brady's will be back on the circuit pumping for a new "assault weapons" ban. Will they get it? It's doubtful at this time, but political winds can change. We've seen it before.

And let's not forget the bill that Pete Stark and 33 other members of the House of Rep. tried to get enacted which would treat SA "assault weapons" just as machine guns. But there's nothing to see there folks. Move along.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

USAFNoDak,

Just a final couple of questions.

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"? Would they be any more successful then than they have been?

I'll go out on a limb and say yes to question one and no to question two is what I believe. I think that takes out the NFA from your equation. Heck if there were no such thing as FA and thus no NFA they would still try to ban them (assault rifles)!

Sure they will bring up that FA is regulated just like they bring up that cars are regulated, dynamite etc. but the driving force to regulate guns is not because we have other regulations but that they (the antis) think they are dangerous.

Anyway, I think I have lost what your original point is. Are you saying that the NFA is causing other gun regulation and therefore bad? If you are then I refer you back to the slippery slope fallacy because that is what it appears to me you are saying. Here is a quote from Eugene's Volokh's "Mechanisms of the Slippery Slope" that I think pertain to what you are saying:

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation. Follow my previous link to see why that is a fallacy.

I think we agree that the Bradys try to scare and misinform the public.

EDIT: After reading some more of your posts I think one of the differences we have is that you (and ironically the antis) do not think there is very much difference between FA and SA. I think there is a big difference and I think the public does too when informed properly and that is why up until now we have been able to beat back the AWBs to date when we are able to show the public the difference. That maybe coloring our arguments, just a guess.

[zukiphile]

If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"?

Emphasis added.

The "and thus" suggests that a severely restricted market would result in as much lawful possession as a very open market. That isn't a reasonable premise.

Additionally, the issue presented is not what "the Bradys [would] still try" to do, but whether an existing near ban serves the rhetoric of other near bans.


While my personal interests do not rest in selective fire items, that the federal government takes such draconian measures against NFA items can only contribute to the sense that there is something wrong with owning them.

The portion of the NFA that I believe is more awful that the selective fire ban is the unnecessary licensing of sound suppressing systems. Guns are loud. Too loud, really. Loud enough to cause hearing loss over time. Yet the same states that will ticket you for not having a muffler on your automobile often have their own laws against having one on your firearm. Is hold ups with suppressed weapons a big problem? I can only guess that we would have laws requiring use of suppressors in populated areas if it weren't for the impediments to ownership that keep them rare.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:If there were no Hughes Amendment and no NFA, but folk still had the fear of FA that they do today (and thus the same number of law abiding citizens possessed them) would the Bradys still try and ban semi-auto "assault rifles"? Would they be any more successful then than they have been?

Now we are straying into hypotheticals or what ifs. I choose not to go there. My point includes the fact that we do have an NFA and a Hughes Amendment, and those are used by some anti gun groups in attempts to strictly regulate, virtually ban, or completely ban other types of guns.

I'll go out on a limb and say yes to question one and no to question two is what I believe. I think that takes out the NFA from your equation. Heck if there were no such thing as FA and thus no NFA they would still try to ban them (assault rifles)!

If there was no FA and thus no NFA, yes, they would still try to ban semi autos and other types of guns. But that's not the case today. There are FA's, and there is an NFA. The antis, such as the Bradys, use that in their attempts to strictly regulate other types of guns. Their website demonstrates that, as I have shown.

Sure they will bring up that FA is regulated just like they bring up that cars are regulated, dynamite etc. but the driving force to regulate guns is not because we have other regulations but that they (the antis) think they are dangerous.

I don't recall how many times I've agreed with you that the Brady's want to regulate all guns because they believe they are all dangerous. But it's not politically possible for them to ban all guns at this time. They need more justification. So, as their website demonstrates, they point to machine guns and the NFA to help them justify banning SA "assault weapons by comparing, the dangers (falsely in my opinion) between FA and SA".

Anyway, I think I have lost what your original point is. Are you saying that the NFA is causing other gun regulation and therefore bad?


No, what I've been saying all along is that laws such as the NFA are dangerous to our civil rights because they can be used as tools by the anti's to further regulate other types of guns. The Brady's have been doing exactly that with the NFA and the Hughes amendment, in their attempt to ban SA "assault weapons", specifically.

[USAFNoDak]

TG:After reading some more of your posts I think one of the differences we have is that you (and ironically the antis) do not think there is very much difference between FA and SA. I think there is a big difference and I think the public does too when informed properly and that is why up until now we have been able to beat back the AWBs to date when we are able to show the public the difference.

The only difference between an M16 and an AR15 is that the M16 can fire more than one round per pull of the trigger, the latest versions using 3 round burst to fire three rounds per trigger pull. Other than that, they are identical. They look the same, sound the same, and shoot the same bullet with the same cartridge. Now, if we get into mini guns and belt fed machine guns, there is a lot of difference because to the best of my knowledge, I don't know of any semi auto only belt fed machine guns nor any semi auto mini guns. So, I do note the differences between SA and FA, but with respect to SA "assault weapons" specifically, and their FA counterparts, there is not much difference other than multiple rounds per trigger pull vs. one round only per trigger pull.

[44 AMP]

So I have no idea what they would do, specifically. But if you take a look at the history of the gun control movement, one can find some good indicators.

They were fine for decades with just the NFA 34. They didn't care about what they today call assault weapons (military style semi autos). Certainly they would have gladly accepted any restriction on any one owning any gun, but the didn't push for any additional restrictions on machine guns, or their semi auto look alikes. For decades, they focused their main effort on handguns, when they focused on a specific type at all.

Their push against handguns was led by the catch phrase "Saturday Night Special", which, of course, they defined to suit themselves. The GCA 68's provisions for banning the import of handguns below a certain arbitrary size criteria (along with other guns for other reasons) was what they got from that campaign. And they got the GCA 68 due to a combination of two main factors, the Kennedy assassinations, (how it was sold to the public) and trade protectionism (how it was sold to many members of Congress).

They didn't give a rat's posterior about making any significant effort to restrict military style semi autos. First, because they had not been used in any spectacular crimes, and were very very seldom used in "ordinary" street crime. Second, they were a relatively small portion of the gun market (in those days), and third, the new that the time was not right so their efforts would be wasted. Public support just was not there in the 60s, or the 70s. They got support for handgun restrictions, "Saturday Night Specials" were crime guns.

Enter the 80s. Drug traffickers use of illegal full auto guns brought them back into focus in the anti gunner's eye, and back on to the radar of the general non shooting public. Hollywood's increased use of machineguns in every conceivable action movie (because they are dramatic), where before machineguns, especially SMGs and actual assault rifles, where they had been rather rare before, outside of war movies, put them back into the eye of the public (and always in the hands of a bad guy or a cop/soldier).

Then the mass shootings began. San Ysidro Mcdonalds (uzi) didn't get much traction, but it did stir the coals. Stockton schoolyard (AK -semi) started flames, as the media focused on the gun used, instead of the dead nut who pulled the trigger. Our newly developed 24hr news coverage kept it going. the mass murder of children is always news, as often and as grizzly as you can report it, or anything connected with it. The Reagan assassination attempt (handgun) brought the Bradys into it personally. Sarah became the mouthpiece for the movement, and a pretty effective one, using her victim status and political/PR savy to build the image of "assault weapons" in to an evil dangerous threat to life, safety and the American family. Willingly aided and abetted by a major portion of the news and entertainment industry, endlessly repeating (usually for free) whatever lies, disinformation, or obfuscation spoken by any anti gun personality, the political movement built up steam.

Copycat Stockton style shootings and others around the country (and media focus on them) added to the affectiveness of gun control arguments, in the uninformed court of public opinion.

Even though he himself was wounded in the attack, Pres Reagan did not call for, or support more gun control laws. But when the Clinton administration took over, that changed.

The antis have been hitting hard on "assault weapons" ever since. The only remotely beneficial side effect this (for us) has been the relaxation of their attack on handgun ownership. Due to that, and more so to the general public realization after Sept 11 that guns in private citizens hands were not the most dangerous thing facing the people of our nation, we have made a lot of progress in the legal protection of people having and using handguns for self defense in recent years. But make no mistake, they haven't given up, on anything. Once they win another restriction on those evil black rifles, etc. they will go back to trying to get rid of those dangerous handguns as their main effort.

The people making up the movement fall into a few general categories, as to their views on guns. Some fear guns, as objects. These people either un/under educated as to what guns really are, or a simply pathological in their worldview. Some have been "victims" of "gun violence", who have focused on the tool used, instead of the person who did the deed. Many are politically motivated, and do not fear guns at all. What they fear is guns in the hands of people they do not control! They don't want any guns in the hands of Joe Sixpack, generaly holding the elitist view that the great unwashed are unable to be trusted with their own safety, or more importantly, the safety of their precious elitist skins!

The Bradys had no problem as part of the White House entourage, being surrounded by Secret Servicemen and women carrying guns, even true machineguns and assault weapons, on a daily basis. The never said a word in public about the danger they were in from the people around them having these weapons. Not a peep!

The most anti gun politician is fine with an armed bodyguard, the police, and the military having all these weapons. But not with you or I having the same, or anything that remotely resembles them.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

No, what I've been saying all along is that laws such as the NFA are dangerous to our civil rights because they can be used as tools by the anti's to further regulate other types of guns.

I understand your point and as I stated before it is part of the slippery slope fallacy to wit:

Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

It does not follow.

They need more justification.

Which they find (as pointed out by 44 AMP above) by the crimes committed with those guns by drug gangs and insane mass shooters that worry the public. THAT is what drives them NOT the NFA or FOPA '86.

Also, the Hughes Amendment was just a poison pill for the FOPA which contained a whole bunch of stuff (like FFLs being able to do gunshows) which the antis did not want. I don't think the antis really cared about FA other than they want them along with everything else banned and it certainly had no bearing on the NFA.

So, I do note the differences between SA and FA, but with respect to SA "assault weapons" specifically, and their FA counterparts, there is not much difference other than multiple rounds per trigger pull vs. one round only per trigger pull.

Which we have disagreed on before but that is a different argument.;)

[USAFNoDak]

TG:
I understand your point and as I stated before it is part of the slippery slope fallacy to wit:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
Political momentum: Once the government has passed this gun law it becomes easier to pass other gun laws, including laws like confiscation.

It does not follow.

Remember, we did have an assault weapons ban for 10 years. And polling seems to show that the public still supports a ban on "assault weapons". Thank God the anti's couldn't get enough support in congress to renew it. Lord knows the anti's such as Dianne Feinstein, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Chuck Schumer, and others tried. Even old "go along to get along" GW Bush said he'd sign an "Assault Weapons" bill if it came to his desk, though he probably knew he was in no danger of having to do so. The congress critters were still wary of how many democrats lost their seats for supporting the AWB in 94 and voting for it. Thus, I don't believe the slippery slope is non existent. We have managed to balance it for now, and we've even made some gains with more CCW states and Heller, though Heller is a luke warm victory in my opinion. We'll see what else it leads to. I'm hoping it leads to a slippery slope in the other direction for a change. We are always on a teeter totter when it comes to political issues. The balance can shift.

Quote:
Originally Posted by USAFNoDak
They need more justification.

Which they find (as pointed out by 44 AMP above) by the crimes committed with those guns by drug gangs and insane mass shooters that worry the public. THAT is what drives them NOT the NFA or FOPA '86.

Yes, but they also use the NFA and FOPA 86 as pointed out by me, above, several times. They will use whatever they can to push their agenda. Crime, mass shootings, previous control, the collective rights theory, etc. That doesn't mean they are always successful. I've never claimed they have been 100% successful. However, they have had successes in the past, as in a 10 year AWB and the NFA and the Hughes amendment.

Also, the Hughes Amendment was just a poison pill for the FOPA which contained a whole bunch of stuff (like FFLs being able to do gunshows) which the antis did not want. I don't think the antis really cared about FA other than they want them along with everything else banned and it certainly had no bearing on the NFA.

They may not have cared about FA, but that doesn't stop them from now using the issue in their attempts to ban SA. They will use the "perceived" ban on machine guns if they think it can help them. We've already seen Pete Stark and his merry men, plus the Bradys, do so.

[Al Norris]

228 Posts and no one has managed to change anyone elses political stance.

I'm closing it, before we move to another page.

Thanks to everyone that added to this debate.