The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old February 8, 2013, 12:06 AM   #26
Crazy88Fingers
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 20, 2010
Location: Florida
Posts: 936
Keep in mind that nearly everything the Founders said and wrote suggests (if not explicitly states) that the right to bear arms was a safeguard against tyrannical government. I doubt they wanted the right to bear arms to be subjected to strict regulations from the very entity it was designed to protect us from.
__________________
"And I'm tellin' you son, well it ain't no fun, staring straight down a .44"
-Lynyrd Skynyrd
Crazy88Fingers is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 10:02 AM   #27
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,497
Quote:
Originally Posted by zxcvbob
USSC has already addressed that at least somewhat in the 1936 Miller decision -- military weapons are the MOST protected and subject to the least restrictions, not the most restriction. That is what the prefatory clause is all about.
But if you read the full majority decision for Heller (both the actual holding and the dicta), you'll see that Justice Scalia argues right around a right to keep and bear "military" weapons and turns it into a right to keep and bear those "civilian" (non-military) weapons in common use. And he specifically states that this (in his opinion) is not contrary to Miller.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 01:31 PM   #28
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,497
I had some time to look up the Heller decision.

First, as to the relationship between the militia clause and the main body of the amendment:

Quote:
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
[Emphasis added]

Quote:
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
[Emphasis added]
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 02:54 PM   #29
nazshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
Samnavy:
Be careful who you use that argument with. There are actually a significant number of folks who would have no problem with your examples and we already have watered down versions of them. Consider the mileage mandates and "smart growth" just as two examples.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
nazshooter is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 03:18 PM   #30
nazshooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2008
Posts: 151
AB: It sounds like the basic reasoning is that the types of weapons that one would expect the militia to bring with them when called out were roughly the same as what they might already have for hunting, home defense etc and therefore those were the kinds of weapons being protected. What sorts of weapons would the modern militia leaders expect people to show up with if they were needed today? Obviously AR-15 type weapons with normal capacity magazines would be very welcome as would be scoped hunting/sniper rifles. In short, it sounds like Scalia was trying to head off the "so everyone now has the right to a nuclear weapon" argument.

Unlike some, I don't think the question is entirely academic. Anyone who has been paying attention to our budget problems can see that we won't be able to maintain anything like our current military forever.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2
nazshooter is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 03:19 PM   #31
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.
I would agree with this statement IF Gura's qualifying clause of (essentially) "in common use or WOULD BE in common use had they not been banned."

There are very, very few weapons that would not meet the "Common Use" criteria under "Gura's Clause". Certainly all "small arms" of every type would be in common use, were they legal... they were until 1986.
__________________
Still happily answering to the call-sign Peetza.
---
The problem, as you so eloquently put it, is choice.
-The Architect
-----
He is no fool who gives what he can not keep to gain what he can not lose.
-Jim Eliott, paraphrasing Philip Henry.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 05:32 PM   #32
thecelt
Member
 
Join Date: March 8, 2005
Location: ny
Posts: 87
Well regulated = well organized/maintained
thecelt is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 06:55 PM   #33
hermannr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 24, 2011
Posts: 730
very inderesting write-up on this question, here:

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
hermannr is offline  
Old February 8, 2013, 09:35 PM   #34
Levant
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 182
BMTJ, CCWs are just a form of gun registration. In fact, in many states you have to register exactly what guns you own and add them to your right-to-bear-arms license.

Every time the government gives us a token of our rights and we accept it, then we accept and confirm that our rights are gifts from Washington.
Levant is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.08680 seconds with 9 queries