The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 1, 2014, 10:10 PM   #1
Cnon
Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2005
Posts: 91
JPFO Article

Quote:
By now, we all have seen the video of the tragic events that took place a few days ago when a 9-year-old girl killed her instructor with an Uzi. The child lost control of the machine gun and accidentally shot instructor Charles Vacca in the head. The video went viral, and every gun grabber from Moms Demand Action, whose head hoplophobe Shannon Watts wasted no time in hopes ”that this event will lead to a national discussion about children and guns“ to the charlatans at the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, whose scheming staff attorney immediately invoked ”America’s weak gun laws“ as cause for the tragedy, began to demand what they define as ”common sense.“

More here: http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/kenyon-common-sense.htm


For discussion, could the Second Amendment community be trying too hard here in calling for "common sense" laws, that they wind up tramping the Second Amendment?


Cnon

Last edited by Tom Servo; September 2, 2014 at 02:05 AM.
Cnon is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 02:00 AM   #2
GJSchulze
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2013
Location: Western New York
Posts: 308
I don't think that many shooters will fall for "common sense" anything. There's no possible law that would have prevented this. I'm sure the anti's will propose something, but it's more likely along the line of making this a parental hanging offense. More and more I see parents being arrested or kids taken away from the parents for the smallest "infraction." I find this outrageous and I don't even have kids.
GJSchulze is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 02:07 AM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
Exactly what "common sense" law should we have regarding machine guns? The National Firearms Act regulates weapons like the Uzi. It is an unconstitutional taxation scheme that prohibits ownership by all but the most affluent and makes possession difficult even for them.

The only measure that could go farther would be an outright ban. If bans on ownership are "common sense," then the MDA and LCAV agenda is quite clear. They might want to be careful with their rhetoric.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 06:42 AM   #4
Cnon
Member
 
Join Date: February 3, 2005
Posts: 91
Quote:
Exactly what "common sense" law should we have regarding machine guns? The National Firearms Act regulates weapons like the Uzi. It is an unconstitutional taxation scheme that prohibits ownership by all but the most affluent and makes possession difficult even for them.

You got that right, Tom.


Cnon
Cnon is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 05:00 PM   #5
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 472
You don't have to be affluent to own an Uzi.
__________________
I love Full Auto!!
Machineguntony is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 05:46 PM   #6
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machineguntony
You don't have to be affluent to own an Uzi.
Yeah, actually you do. First there's the $200 "tax stamp" you have to buy. Then there's the fact that anything capable of full-auto costs at least ten times as much as a semi-auto version of the same firearm. And then the prodigious amount of ammunition that gets chewed up when playing with a full-auto toy.

You may not need to be filthy rich, but you do have to have better than average financial resources.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 07:39 PM   #7
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 472
You can get an Uzi for $8000. That isn't rich.

Now, an M240...that's a different story...
__________________
I love Full Auto!!
Machineguntony is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 08:51 PM   #8
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
Quote:
You can get an Uzi for $8000. That isn't rich.
That's the price of a car or a year's rent for folks in some income brackets.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 2, 2014, 09:36 PM   #9
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 1,936
I guess if I had the money for a second car or another home, I'd consider spending it on an Uzi, but not for very long.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 08:54 AM   #10
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machineguntony
You can get an Uzi for $8000. That isn't rich.
You must live in a different universe than mine. I work in an office with 22 professional engineers. I don't know their exact salaries, but I know from enough casual discussions about shopping for cars or saving for vacations that not one of them could afford to drop $8,000 on a toy like an Uzi. I don't think I personally know anyone who could afford that.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 09:14 AM   #11
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,452
$8,000 dollars represents an as yet un purchased engagement ring or rent for the next two years.

which represents the exact intent of the NFA '34. Price machine guns, and other "gangster" weapons out of the hands of the common man.

But if you're the Chief Inspector for the local Pinkerton Bureau, well, then set yourself up a trust and buy that M-1917 to keep them Northern Commie Agitators from getting too uppity.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 09:45 AM   #12
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Was there a lack of common sense involved here? Sure. Will a law fix it? Nope.

It's human nature. When you get familiar with something you get careless and sloppy with it.

Go ask the reloading forum what the dumbest mistake they ever made was.

Or browse the rifle and/or gunsmithing forum for pictures of some poor sap who blew out his barrel. There's more than one picture of more than one rifle at one of my local ranges with a blown out rifle, one because some poor sap forgot to take the rod out of the barrel before firing.

Anybody else remember sitting on their dad's lap and "steering" the car while it was in motion?

Anybody want to guess how many farmer's kids are run over by a tractor every year?
JimDandy is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 10:04 AM   #13
Brian Pfleuger
Staff
 
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Central, Southern NY, USA
Posts: 18,791
Quote:
Originally Posted by SPEMack618
which represents the exact intent of the NFA '34.
It certainly was the intent of the NFA but it hasn't really been the effect for many years. The NFA isn't responsible for the current price of machine guns. That would be the '86 ban. $200 for the tax in today's world is trivial. The '86 ban made machine guns that were a few hundred $$ in 1985 into $20,000 today. That's literally a home for some people.
__________________
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.

Last edited by Brian Pfleuger; September 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM.
Brian Pfleuger is offline  
Old September 3, 2014, 11:28 AM   #14
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
The Hughes amendment that closed the registration for new select fire weapons is, in fact, a ban on an entire class of firearms that are commonly used throughout the world. It is a government prohibition on new, full auto firearms for everyone, except the government (and dealers) at all times. This ban cannot possibly be squared with the clear intent and purpose as announced in the first clause of the Second Amendment.

Justice Scalia asserts in Heller that modern technology creates a disconnect between the militia/anti-tyranny purpose and the self-defense purpose of the amendment. That's true as far as it goes, because very few people can afford their own fighter jet or aircraft carrier.

But what creates the disconnect where small arms are concerned, is the government's own, very recent ('86) prohibition on new sales to all law-abiding people at all times.

Remember, the court said that the second amendment extends, prima facia, to all instruments that constitute a bearable arm.

But then the court implies that imagining second amendment protection for some small arms, "M-16s and the like", would be an "alarming" reading of US v Miller. Why?

Actually, wouldn't that be a plain reading of US versus Miller and clause 1? The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; September 3, 2014 at 11:37 AM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 10:00 AM   #15
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 371
Quote:
Actually, wouldn't that be a plain reading of US versus Miller and clause 1? The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.
I agree and believe you are exactly correct. However, by the time you get to be a Supreme Court Justice, you have for a while been living in a world in which you get potentially serious death threats and work (if not live) in a building protected by armed security. I fear that can change one's view on what is "ordinary" or "reasonable" and what liberties might "need" to be restricted to some degree.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 12:49 PM   #16
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,477
Quote:
You don't have to be affluent to own an Uzi.
That depends on your personal definition of affluent.

$8000 for an Uzi may not seem like much to you, but to me, or the next guy it could be a much different matter.

I have a roof over my head, enough to eat, and enough money to keep from freezing to death during a normal winter. And a fixed income sufficient to maintain this, currently.

Compared to many people in the US, and a huge number of people in other parts of the world, I am well off.

Compared to someone making $50K a year, I'm not. Compared to someone making enough to drop $8000 on a gun I'm poor. In terms of money, at any rate. I have enough for my daily needs, and have over the years gotten nearly everything I ever really wanted. I think I'm well off, even though I cannot afford a machine gun, thanks to the effect of various laws on the market price.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 4, 2014, 12:58 PM   #17
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,441
Also bear in mind, even moreso than other firearms, the real cost is not in the platform, but the ammunition to enjoy it. We all know the expensive part of firearms is feeding the beast. It plays a pretty big part on why there's so much more reloading than gun smithing.
JimDandy is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 01:03 AM   #18
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,477
Quote:
The only thing Miller didn't apparently didn't get right is that short-barreled shotguns are, in fact, useful in warfare.
While I'd have to go and look up the exact wording used (and I'm not going to, you can, if you want..) I believe that the court in the Miller ruling actually did get it technically right.

IIRC, their ruling about short barrel shotguns not being covered as militia arms (useful in warfare), began with the words "this court has been presented no evidence..."

They didn't actually say that short barrel shotguns had no utility, they said they hadn't been shown evidence that they did (and in that were fully correct, as such evidence was not given to the court, as far as I can see).

The practical effect and laws have been enforced as if they actually said that they aren't useful in warfare, but they, technically didn't say that.

I'm old, tired, and my memory isn't what it once was, so I may be in error, if I am, I'm going to let you show me...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 01:13 AM   #19
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
I think that's right. I believe the plaintiff died before the court case was concluded. It was somewhat of a default.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 07:23 AM   #20
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,385
Quote:
I believe the plaintiff died before the court case was concluded. It was somewhat of a default.
He did, and his attorney couldn't make it to DC on short notice. The government was free to argue its case without opposition.

Add to that the fact that Justice McReynolds was known for being sloppy (among other things), and we ended up with a perfunctory opinion.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 11:47 AM   #21
Machineguntony
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 22, 2013
Posts: 472
When I say that $8000 for an Uzi isn't rich, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I was very poor not too long ago. I've never forgotten my old days, when I was dirt poor and didn't have a lot. What I mean is that I know plenty of people, of normal income, who buy a classic car project, a painting, antiques, etc, for a lot more than $8000. Seems like a small splurge that is within reach.
__________________
I love Full Auto!!
Machineguntony is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 04:23 PM   #22
SPEMack618
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 21, 2010
Location: Central Georgia
Posts: 1,452
I didn't take it as such Tony, I mean I could go drop the cash on an Uzi right now, but, assuming the girlfriend didn't walk out on me, we'd be eating Ramen for the next month(s).

I find it telling that every time the NFA, or civilian legal machines are discussed, Miller comes to a point.

Such a travesty of juris prudence.
__________________
NRA Life Member
Big Sister: "You should be sponsored by Allen"
Me: "If you can't shoot good, at least look good walking to the firing line."
Big Sister: "Can you not afford a Pelican? Then buy an Allen gun bag."
SPEMack618 is offline  
Old September 5, 2014, 04:45 PM   #23
jimbob86
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 4, 2007
Location: All the way to NEBRASKA
Posts: 6,873
Adding more laws won't stop stupidity.

What that "instructor" did in the AZ incident was stupid, plain and simple.

The very idea that additional Legislation will protect everyone from people doing stupid stuff ...... that is just stupid.

Seriously: handing an inexperienced little girl a machinegun, switching it to full auto and basicly saying, "Have at it!" is as stupid as dropping the same girl in the seat of a running dragster and saying, "GO!" ....... common sense would tell you that it isn't a good idea....... but apparently, common sense is not so very common, now that we have all these laws and government programs to protect people from the consequences of their own actions ......
__________________
TheGolden Rule of Tool Use: "If you don't know what you are doing, DON'T."

http://nefirearm.com/

Last edited by jimbob86; September 5, 2014 at 04:59 PM.
jimbob86 is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 12:58 PM   #24
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,090
There is a pattern on the left of taking isolated or rare but tragic events, reframing them as a trend in order to make laws that target almost everything except the actual anomalies. They seem to have a penchant for casting aside liberty in futile attempts to net a few bottom feeders.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Old September 6, 2014, 02:48 PM   #25
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 11,477
Quote:
They seem to have a penchant for casting aside liberty in futile attempts to net a few bottom feeders.
Because what we see as liberty they see as (at best) an antiquated notion that no longer has a place in polite society, or (at worst) an actual threat to the health and safety of society.

Personally, I think they are drastically wrong on both those counts, but they don't, and are determined to do what they believe is best for all of us, despite our wants, desires, or those pesky constitutional rights...

False implications, misdirection, definitions to suit the moment, deception up to out right lies, these are the assault weapons in their arsenal, and they use them all with gleeful abandon. As far as I can see, their approach to the subject is "the ends justify the means".
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP 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 03:18 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 0.14731 seconds with 9 queries