October 12, 2009, 01:00 PM | #76 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Succunct and therefore forceful
deleted
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
October 12, 2009, 01:24 PM | #77 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
|
|
October 12, 2009, 06:41 PM | #78 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
October 12, 2009, 07:40 PM | #79 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
October 12, 2009, 08:16 PM | #80 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
__________________
Caveat Emperor |
|
October 12, 2009, 09:56 PM | #81 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; October 13, 2009 at 08:01 PM. |
|
October 13, 2009, 01:37 AM | #82 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
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?
|
October 13, 2009, 06:59 AM | #83 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
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.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
October 13, 2009, 07:44 AM | #84 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
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.
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
October 13, 2009, 08:29 PM | #85 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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? Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; October 13, 2009 at 11:02 PM. |
||||||
October 13, 2009, 10:30 PM | #86 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
|
||
October 13, 2009, 10:55 PM | #87 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
October 14, 2009, 08:05 AM | #88 | ||||||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,439
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; October 14, 2009 at 08:16 AM. |
||||||||||||
October 14, 2009, 03:22 PM | #89 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 14, 2009, 03:56 PM | #90 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member |
|
October 14, 2009, 05:16 PM | #91 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
October 14, 2009, 05:38 PM | #92 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 15, 2001
Location: Winter Haven, Florida
Posts: 4,303
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
NRA Certified Instructor: Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, Home Safety, Personal Protection, Range Safety Officer NRA Life Member Last edited by Hkmp5sd; October 14, 2009 at 06:55 PM. |
|
October 14, 2009, 05:57 PM | #93 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
October 14, 2009, 06:12 PM | #94 | |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
|
October 14, 2009, 06:37 PM | #95 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|||
October 15, 2009, 02:10 AM | #96 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 28, 2009
Posts: 399
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 15, 2009, 09:30 AM | #97 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,172
|
Quote:
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." |
|
October 15, 2009, 10:07 AM | #98 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
October 15, 2009, 10:18 AM | #99 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2006
Posts: 1,310
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
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.
__________________
Caveat Emperor Last edited by divemedic; October 15, 2009 at 10:27 AM. |
||
October 15, 2009, 11:12 AM | #100 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
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.
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|