1986 Gun ban

[mack59]

Tennessee Gentleman - apologize for any misunderstanding - the first part/paragraph of my post - which could have been clearer was directed towards zukiphile's comment - "You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into. Education itself is a good thing, but for the body of people whose decisions are emotionally driven, education is not relevent."

It was not intended to impunge you or anyone on this board. And it was relating to the attitude that some in the general public have against guns which I felt zukiphile characterized accurately in regards to a portion of the general public. And I wasn't trying to put down people who have those views themselves - why should they necessarily have a particularily informed view of guns and not base their views on their personal experience or lack thereof or on the recieved views of their peer group.

Yes, public attitude does influence repeal - but it is not a simple majority or percent in favor. It is widely accepted that the assault weapon ban contributed significantly to the democratic loss of the house and senate - but even then the majority of americans really didn't care that much about it - it was a committed minority, I would guess maybe 10 percent or less that voted single issue and also influenced their friends and neighbors votes that made the difference. Politicians may be many things but they can usually count votes and the same thing is needed for the repeal of the hughes amendment - not convincing a majority - but getting the gun owning community solidly behind repeal and then getting them to influence family and friends. That is why the NRA has always been more powerful than the Brady bunch - the NRA's support however broad it may be - is a mile deep - while the gun controllers support, however wide - is only an inch deep.

I guess that is why I find it disconcerting when I feel as though gun owners start "drawing lines within their own community" - Shotgunners, handgunners, cowboy shooters, rifle shooters, hunters, full auto....ect....

But as I originally meant to end by saying - we may just agree to disagree - and thank you TG - and all - for your comments and thoughts on this issue. I think we can all work to in our own way to promote safe and responsible gun ownership.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by mack59

I think we can all work to in our own way to promote safe and responsible gun ownership.

And here we do agree!

[44 AMP]

I know a great many people who are firm 2nd Amendment supporters, but not gun enthusiasts. Some are hunters, others are not. But they all believe that we have the right to own guns, for protection, or sport. But they do not believe is machinegun ownership for the general public. As one once told me, "I trust you, you know guns, and what you are doing, but lots of people don't".

And in the end, that what it boils down to, excluding the committed anti gunners, and those simply brainwashed by the anti's propaganda. Decent, intelligent people simply do not believe the common people are responsible enough to be safe with full auto weapons. And, they may be right. We can't know for sure, since that state has not existed since 1934 when restrictive regulations took effect. But I find it likely they would be right, if things were to magically be changed overnight. Too many people are alreadly irresponsible about too many things already, and adding in totally unrestricted full auto ownership doesn't seem to me to make things any better. But that's not precisely what's under discussion.

As to the Hughs Amendment - it would not change the level of regulation as it would not touch the 1934 NFA - I can't see how it would increase dramatically the number of people willing or able to jump through those hoops...

AH, but it would. This thread, and others like it appearing frequently on the board points to a generation of folks with a renewed interest in full auto, and their frustration at learning that they cannot enjoy it, due to the law, and the high cost of those guns legal to own (again, because of the Hughes amendment).

There are apparently a number of people, who have enough money(if the price was even remotely reasonable), and would be willing to go through the NFA process, if the law would allow them to. This is probably due to the attacks and bans on semi auto guns drawing their attention to the subject in the first place.

I mean, suppose you're well off enough to be able to afford a couple thousand for the gun you want, but not $20-40K (or more) for one of the legally transferable guns. And the law won't let you buy (or build) and register a new one. Pretty frustrating, especially when you have been shooting that AR or AK, and would like to experience it in full auto. You can afford it (or could if the price was not aritifically hugely inflated), you got a clean record, can pass any background check, can even get the local Police chief to agree, but the law says you can't do it.

I've been seeing a few of these threads lately, probably from younger folks who were not of an age or income level back when the '86 law went into effect, and are just finding out now the legal limits to full auto ownership.

If the Hughes amendment were repealed, I think that there are a lot of people would would jump at the chance, and go through the hassle to be able to put the "happy switch" in their AR for a few hundred dollars. I would, if the state I lived in allowed it.

[mack59]

Ah, but the point is that a lot of states don't allow it and even in those states that do - there are many jurisdictions where getting the law enforcement sign off is not easy. Especially in more urban/metropolitan areas. Just look at FFL's - it really is not that hard to get a basic FFL - a lot easier in fact than to get full auto - yet there are many areas that have a shortage of available FFL's. Yes, a lot of people say they want or even would get full auto, (particularily on gun forums which provides a skewed sample), but the reality is that even if the Hughes amendment were repealed and the price dropped from 20,000 to 2,000 or even 1,000, (which 1,000 would probably be rock bottom since there are restrictions on imports, there would still be very limited demand, and all the paperwork and legal hurdles to selling them, and limited FFL's who can sell full auto, and old guns would still command a premium as collector items), not very many people are going to end up jumping through all the hoops necessary to own one. At most because of pent up demand and the distortion of the market caused by Hughes - one might see a doubling in the number of full auto owners in the first year or two after repeal - which is a relatively small number - and probably more than half of the new full auto's sold would go to people who already owned/had full auto's before repeal since they have gone through the all the hoops before and obviously live in areas in states where it is legal and they can get law enforcement sign offs. So, if you think that doubling the small number of full auto owners is a huge increase then we would disagree, because the total number of full auto owners would still be a small proportion of gun owners and an even smaller number of the general population.

I guess where we mostly disagree is over the right to own full auto and the responsibilty of individuals. If I understand you correctly you do not believe people have the right to own machine guns and you do not believe that people in general are responsible enough to own them. Whether or not people have a right to own them is a whole other discussion so I won't address that here. However, as to whether or not people are responsible enough to own them - well that begs the question - if prior to the hughes amendment in 1986 when new machine guns were available there wasn't a problem with people being irresponsible why would that change? Are people today so different - much less responsible? I mean given the liberalization of concealed carry laws in the last two to three decades, if people were less responsible now one would think that there would be shoot outs in the streets as predicted by the opponents of shall issue concealed carry - but there hasn't been. One might think that the number of fatal firearm accidents would have increased if people today are less responsible, but they have decreased.

As you posted:

"Decent, intelligent people simply do not believe the common people are responsible enough to be safe with full auto weapons. And, they may be right. We can't know for sure, since that state has not existed since 1934 when restrictive regulations took effect. But I find it likely they would be right, if things were to magically be changed overnight. Too many people are alreadly irresponsible about too many things already, and adding in totally unrestricted full auto ownership doesn't seem to me to make things any better. But that's not precisely what's under discussion."

Again, soley repealing the Hughes amendment would not result in totally unrestricted full auto ownership. So, I am struggling to understand your concerns about it - as I know that as you say - many individuals share your point of view or concerns. I may be confused here as I am not clear if you are talking about Hughes or the NFA of 1934 or both.

I am not trying to be contentious or argumentative here - I really do want to understand.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by mack59

Yes, a lot of people say they want or even would get full auto, (particularily on gun forums which provides a skewed sample)

I agree with you and further say that is why political leverage to repeal Hughes is not there and not likely to be. I equate attitudes towards gun rights on TFL like abortion rights on the Planned Parenthood website. Sometimes it approaches fantasy in it's extremes.

I think a lot of gun owners would not buy FA because of other reasons besides fear. I don't believe FA has EVER been popular with the great majority of the gun owning public EVEN before the NFA. In 1986 the registry (according to Al Norris) had about 100K of legal owners. Compare that to maybe 90 MILLION gun owners and that is a drop in the bucket. Others argue that more would own them if all restrictions were lifted and I agree more would but I see no evidence that say 20% of all gun owners would buy them.

IMO the public in general and many gun owners think FA was designed and intended for military applications (area denial and fire suppression) and are inappropriate for self defense and hunting and belong mostly in the "different world" of hobbyists and collectors. As stated before the militia justification is seen by most as nutty.

Sure the public is afraid of them being legally widespread but they also see no practical need for them either.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by mack59

... soley repealing the Hughes amendment would not result in totally unrestricted full auto ownership. So, I am struggling to understand your concerns about it - as I know that as you say - many individuals share your point of view or concerns...

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't necessarily say that I have a concern. I just think that enough of the body politic has enough of an antipathy to automatic weapons to make the likelihood of repealing the Hughes Amendment vanishingly small, i. e., it's just not going to happen.

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

...You are right that the Hughes amendment would not generate much of a positive sea change with either gun rights or FA ownership. However, as a gun rights person I believe I have only so much political capital to spend and there are FAR FAR more important gun rights issues IMO than owning FA. And since I see no impact on gun rights pro or con by regulating FA I will choose to spend mine elsewhere.

So for me, at least, this is the most significant point. We have other battles to fight -- battles that are both more important for more gun owners, and potential gun owners, and more likely to be successful -- than trying to get rid of the Hughes Amendment.

[44 AMP]

Full auto ownership was not "popular" and was not "common" among the majority of American gun owners. This was because, primarily of the nature of American gun ownership of the time, and the cost of full auto firearms compared to the general economic times.

Had the NFA 34 not been passed, it is entirely possible that by the 1950s that could have changed. But that's a what if situation, having nothing to do with things as they are today.

Before 34, those people who legally owned full autos, and by that I am not talking about criminals like bank robbers or bootleggers, were mostly collectors and hobbyists well off enough to afford them, and people who brought them back as war trophies. A new Tommygun cost as much as several rifles and handguns put together, and for the majority of gun owners, there was simply no reason to spend the money to own one, as its practical value was less than cheaper "working guns".

When the 34 law took effect, large numbers of full auto guns were not registered with the govt, for a number of reasons, inability/unwillingness to pay the tax, and suspicion of govt. being the chief reasons. For decades afterwards, the policy was that if you got caught with an unregistered full auto (having committed no other crime), you paid the tax, registered the gun, and the govt. was happy. Criminal prosecutions for failing to register and pay the tax (when no other crime was involved) were quite rare.

Until 1968. The govt offered an amnesty period to get "all" the unregistered guns registered and taxed. After this expired the govt policy became prosecution for having an unregistered and untaxed (aka "illegal") full auto.

New made guns (complete originals or conversions) were allowed to be registered, (prior to construction/conversion), and "discovered" guns were generally also allowed to be registered and made legal.

That ended in 86, with the Hughes Amendment. No more full autos for civilian ownership. Ever.

The argument that full autos were not popular, and widely owned before 34 and therefore the govt has a valid right to restrict them is fallacious. Top fuel dragsters are not commonly owned by the majority of car owners. It is simply a matter of cost, interest and utility among the general public. My personal view is that there should be NO gun control laws of any kind, simply because (like other inanimate objects) guns are incapable of harming anyone without a person aiming and firing them. We have had laws since the creation of laws, that prohibit harming others for fun and profit. To me, this seems sufficient. BUT, I am enough of a realist to recognize that we have these laws, and too many people believe that they are of significant value, so they are not going away. I have no personal objection to the NFA 34's restrictions (the hoops you have to jump through), except that the local law enforcement approval should be a "must" approve, in the absence of evidence disqualifying you.

Note that in the recent decades, interest in, and ownership of military style rifles has grown hugely. ARs and AKs, (semi auto) are owned in huge numbers by lots of "ordinary" gun owners today. I believe that if the laws and economics allowed, a significant percentage of these guns would be made select fire, which is full auto under US law. Lots of people are into these kinds of guns today (and likely because of the potential for them being restricted by the govt), and this interest leads them to an interest in full auto as well.

Resetting the law back to pre 86 levels would be fine with me. And it would head off the possible legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment that ought to be brought, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller vs DC case.

I will not fight or argue against the govt registering and putting "reasonable" restrictions on full auto ownership. I don't think it should, but I am clearly in the minority on that. So be it. But what the Hughes amendment does is create a "de facto" ban, on an entire class of firearm. And that appears to be contrary to the Heller decision, and so can be fought in court.

In the end, that may be our safest avenue of attack, as unlike an awakened and enraged public/Congress, the courts are unlikely to add additional restrictions into law should our case fail.

The main problem with any public campaign to repeal/nullify the Hughes amendment is that it will be (deliberately) portrayed as "total unrestricted machinegun ownership", to the public, and to lawmakers. All the NFA requirements and restrictions will be conveniently overlooked, and the press will scream about how we want these "formerly illegal guns available on every streetcorner" and how nutjobs, drug dealers and terrorists will buy them at gunshows through the loophole! etc. etc.etc.

I'd like to see the 86 "ban" go away, but these things must be done...delicately.

[USAFNoDak]

Somewhere down the road, we may wish to use a reverse argument. Once assault weapons have become much more acceptable to the public through our education techniques and because the Brady's and others grow tired of banging their heads against the brick wall, we can start to make the argument that full auto is really not all that different from semi auto, especially 3 round burst mode. It's something we should consider at some point in time.

The anti's have tried their best to equate semi auto with full auto because they believe that the public is scared poopless of FA. Well, if we turn that around and can reassure the public that SA's are not that dangerous (we use them for deer hunting after all), and even the Bradys were equating SA to FA, then by logic, FA is not all that dangerous either. I realize that it's a long shot.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

The argument that full autos were not popular, and widely owned before 34 and therefore the govt has a valid right to restrict them is fallacious.

I think what the argument is generally about is whether they were ever "in common use" the standard Heller put forth. I submit the government has a reasonable right to restrict them because they are unsuitable for the common use of self defense for civilians.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Full auto ownership was not "popular" and was not "common" among the majority of American gun owners. This was because, primarily of the nature of American gun ownership of the time, and the cost of full auto firearms compared to the general economic times.

Which means they were never in common use even before NFA. Therefore to argue the NFA made them uncommon is equally fallacious. I would add to your reasons that they were unpopular was because they are unsutiable for civilian law-abiding use.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Had the NFA 34 not been passed, it is entirely possible that by the 1950s that could have changed. But that's a what if situation, having nothing to do with things as they are today.

It is equally possible that their relative rarity among guns owners would have remained the same. Thus they would still not be in common use even today.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

Resetting the law back to pre 86 levels would be fine with me. And it would head off the possible legal challenge to the Hughes Amendment that ought to be brought, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in the Heller vs DC case.

I don't disagree. Hughes serves no public interest whatsoever in my opinion. Still I am not sure as many folk as you think would buy them but if they did then the Brady's would chortel that now with more of them out there more criminals could steal them and use them accordingly. Therefore I fear we could lose the public policy debate on Hughes.

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

But what the Hughes amendment does is create a "de facto" ban, on an entire class of firearm. And that appears to be contrary to the Heller decision, and so can be fought in court.

Not if FA is considered by the court to be 1) dangerous and unusual 2) not in common use. Handguns missed those because they are too numerous and are ideal for civilian SD. ARs might today but I wouldn't bet the farm on that either.

EDIT: Has Hughes been challenged in court like the NFA? Just wondering.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by USAFNoDak

Well, if we turn that around and can reassure the public that SA's are not that dangerous (we use them for deer hunting after all), and even the Bradys were equating SA to FA, then by logic, FA is not all that dangerous either.

LOL. Good luck with that!

[ADB]

Now, all of that is a bunch of meadow muffins, but that is the mindset of the liberals.... The liberals have majorities in both houses of congress and they own the whitehouse.... They'd vote in Count Dracula if he ran as a democrat and promised to tax the rich.

Friendly note: it might behoove you to realize that there are millions of gun owning, heavily armed liberals in this country, including some which belong to this very forum. And probably quite a lot in your home state of Minnesota, being a heavily rural state but with a strong tradition of liberalism. Just a thought.

Back on topic, personally I don't see great odds on the Hughes Act going away any time in the near future, simply because it's difficult bordering on impossible to make a case for what you can do with full auto that you can't do with another weapon except for just recreational shooting. You won't be hunting on auto, and it's not likely to be any more effective for home defense than a semi-auto shotgun. So you're left with a very uphill battle trying to say why it should be easily obtained. Laws that don't create a frequent sense of injustice (and even some that do) tend to stay on the books.

For that matter, ask yourselves what you'd be using it for if you had one? I personally would enjoy having an auto weapon around for fun, but I doubt it would get as much use as would my semi-auto or bolt weapons. Accuracy counts for a lot more than rate of fire.

[44 AMP]

what you can do with full auto that you can't do with another weapon except for just recreational shooting.

For civilians, full auto is all about recreational shooting! Not hunting, not self defense, and although they would be effective as militlia weapons, we all know that dead horse isn't going to get on its feet any time soon. But recreational shooting. A perfectly legal and valid reason. Not, I admit, one popular with the non shooting public, but valid, nonetheless.

Govt has the authority to regulate full auto (even though to a true libertarian/strict constructionist they shouldn't), due to their "unusual and dangerous" nature, but they have no reason to deny us them all together. And, given enough time, thats what the Hughes amendment will do.

They were restricted, taxed and regulated under the NFA 34, but not denied. Individual states may deny ownership (as far as I know, there are only two or three that actually do), but that is a matter for the individual states, and their citizens.

There are a huge number of things in our modern world that have little or no "useful" purpose, other than recreation/enertainment. Many of these things can be misused to lethal ends. Most of them are not regulated at all, or very slightly. The govt does not deny them to us. The whole idea of the government denying us such property as we desire to own and use in a safe and legal manner is, to me, contrary to the idea of personal liberty.

Regulate it, tax it (if you must), ensure the owners are stable, law abiding citizens, fine. But do not arbitrarily completely deny ownership. Firearms have an uphill battle to be considered the same as other property, due to the lethal consequences and ease of their misuse, and lack of everyday utility to the average citizen. No one even considers a complete ban on items of common utility, even though their misuse can have as great a consequence. We regulate them instead. Why do you need a license to drive a car on public roads? For public safety. We license full auto owners for the same basic reason.

It is the operators intent that turns an inanimate object from a tool to a weapon. The greatest mass murder of modern times was not done with guns on that September day.

[maestro pistolero]

Govt has the authority to regulate full auto (even though to a true libertarian/strict constructionist they shouldn't), due to their "unusual and dangerous" nature,

Dangerous and unusual is a legal term utilized in Heller that's yet to be defined. Consider the entire range of weapons of war available to our forces. From a purely logical point of view, FA, or any small arm, is quite low on the D and A scale. Remember that a common militia weapon was a cannon, which could be likened to modern-day tank fire. The second amendment certainly intended to include cannons.

I'm not suggesting that licensing or permitting tanks would be a good idea today, just that even FA small arms pale in comparison to the damage that a well-aimed projectile can do that measures two to four inches in diameter.

All firearms are by definition dangerous. But if the militia clause is to have any modern relevance whatsoever, I would argue that a select-fire-M16 should NOT be defined as dangerous and unusual and therefore should not be able to be banned outright.

If the ability to resist a future tyrannical government is part and parcel of 2A, (and Heller says it is) then a primary object of the amendment would be to preserve the citizenry's means to sufficient force to resist that tyranny.

There are a huge number of things in our modern world that have little or no "useful" purpose, other than recreation/enertainment. Many of these things can be misused to lethal ends.

Exactly, just because anyone who can afford may own a drag racer doesn't mean they use it to drive to work.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

If the ability to resist a future tyrannical government is part and parcel of 2A, (and Heller says it is) then a primary object of the amendment would be to preserve the citizenry's means to sufficient force to resist that tyranny.

I am not sure Heller said that. Certainly not in any way you could have this right to assert against as an individual not in a militia.

I read Heller and especially the oral argument with Alan Gura that FA will be considered both dangerous and unusual and not in common use and all existing laws regulating them upheld.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Exactly, just because anyone who can afford may own a drag racer doesn't mean they use it to drive to work.

In many states I am not sure you could even drive such a thing on public roads. So, maybe we will keep the FA weapons in the armories of the Organized Militia, the National Guard? You can draw them when TEOTWAWKI occurs!

[maestro pistolero]

T.G:

I am not sure Heller said that. Certainly not in any way you could have this right to assert against as an individual not in a militia.

Heller vs DC:

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.

Note that Scalia did not say that 2A right was detached from the prefatory clause. Only that it may be objected that if there's a ban, then the clause is completely detached. But, if it was detached, then ONLY the individual right would remain to be asserted.

But as we have said, 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.

NFA weapons are not illegal under federal law, only regulated, and therefore are lawful weapons.

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.

What are the sophisticated arms he is talking about here? Certainly, FA, which has been around for a very long time is not even slightly sophisticated compared to tanks, and fighter jets.

Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks.

That's lliterally true, but no war can be won with tanks and planes alone, unless annihilation is the means to victory. We've seen this in every war we've fought, especially from Vietnam forward. It always comes down to small arms in the end.

Then Scalia offers this:

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.

So even though small arms no longer alter the balance of power to the same degree, they are still protected, and can not be banned. Regulated, yes. But most of us would agree that the Hughs amendment, which closes the registration on an item that is required to be registered, is a de-facto ban.

And finally from pages 24-25 of the decision:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to
be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story
§1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions
and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large
standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexan*
der Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the
militia. The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed.
1961) (A. Hamilton). Third, when the able-bodied men of
a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better
able to resist tyranny.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Note that Scalia did not say that 2A right was detached from the prefatory clause.

But here he says:

But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right

which indicates to me that

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

the right is detached from the militia purpose. Therefore you cannot claim a right to own an unregistered FA apart from the militia (or within it for that matter since it is dead)

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

What are the sophisticated arms he is talking about here? Certainly, FA, which has been around for a very long time is not even slightly sophisticated compared to tanks, and fighter jets.

Tanks have been around almost 100 years. Jets about 65 years. So how long they have been around means nothing. Scalia is setting up the test of "in common use for law abiding purposes" pertaining to civilian self defense and he is ruling out the private ownership without regulation of military weapons not in common use by civilians. Many have speculated that had he allowed a way to overturn the NFA, he would have lost Kennedy. Stevens in his dissent takes issue with the "in common use" argument but not to our benefit and he lost.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

But the Hughs amendment which closes the registration on an item that is required to be registered, most of us would agree, is a de-facto ban.

Might work. I have asked before has this amendment been taken before a court. Do you know?

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

I think if you take another look at Hamilton and Federalist 29:

an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia.

Hamilton is referring to the state militia since that is all that existed then and which is the only militia the COTUS speaks to. It was the state militias that were to provide the bulwark against tyranny not the lone individual apart from that militia. So, as I said before, you may store your FA in the "militia" armories of the National Guard

[langenc]

There will be no major gun law changes. As noted we cant even agree.

Look at the above posters personal info. How many belong to a RKBA group?? Paltry few..costs too much, too much mail, blah blah blah

PS looks like public info dont ask who supports/who dont. Im sure less than 1/3.

[Frank Ettin]

Originally Posted by langenc

...Look at the above posters personal info. How many belong to a RKBA group?? Paltry few..costs too much, too much mail, blah blah blah...

How do you know? Just because someone doesn't list it in his profile doesn't mean anything. Most folks put precious little in their profiles. I just looked at yours, and you don't list membership in a RKBA organization (and we'll see if you edit your profile now to add something).

[maestro pistolero]

the right is detached from the militia purpose.

Only in the sense that it exists simultaneously. Last time I checked, the first clause still precedes the second. NOT unconnected. NO. Co-exists. Not even the Supreme Court gets to rewrite the constitution. There is a means to do that if you dare. As long as the second amendment has a first clause, it is the law of the land.

Therefore you cannot claim a right to own an unregistered FA apart from the militia (or within it for that matter since it is dead).

That's a very tenuous connection. Whether registration is required or not, a ban is a ban. Your opinion is well known that the militia is dead, and so is mine that it is merely dormant. The first time our professional forces are unable to respond due to widespread catastrophic circumstances that require defense of our communities, it will indeed be raised again. Anyone who thinks that scenario is impossible ignores world history at the future's peril.

Scalia is setting up the test of "in common use for law abiding purposes" pertaining to civilian self defense and he is ruling out the private ownership without regulation of military weapons not in common use by civilians.

Regulation isn't the question, that's settled. But a ban is still a ban.

Tanks have been around almost 100 years. Jets about 65 years. So how long they have been around means nothing.

Ok, agreed, But the passage about arms that are unusual in society at large is referring to SOPHISTICATED arms. No reading of that paragraph can conclude he is referring to small arms.

How people miss the forest for the trees on this point eludes me: It is the ABILITY AND MEANS TO RAISE A MILITIA, NOT necessarily the militia itself that is preserved in the amendment. If it isn't raised for 300 more years, it is still the best, last recourse against future tyranny. It is a credit to the health of our republic that it will likely never be needed, unless it is thrown out, which seems to be what T.G. is suggesting.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Last time I checked, the first clause still precedes the second. NOT unconnected. NO.

I can only refer you back to the case and the holding that said they were unconnected. Scalia is clear on that I believe.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

No reading of that paragraph can conclude he is referring to small arms.

I think he is talking about ALL modern weapon developments. Small arms includes a lot of stuff, not just M-16s. Further, I think Scalia makes it clear that in 1789 the weapons mostly used by the military were the same as those used by private citizens. That is not the case today for the most part.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

How people miss the forest for the trees on this point eludes me: It is the ABILITY AND MEANS TO RAISE A MILITIA, NOT necessarily the militia itself that is preserved in the amendment.

Because we read history and see what the militia was. I don't think you do. You look at some commentary from the time and conclude that the individual in some libertarian sense apart from any government or law is the militia. That is not what it was and not what the founders intended it to be. It is the ability of the STATE to raise and arm the militia that the founders protected NOT the "Right" of individuals on their own to form armed militias as they saw fit. That is what the modern militia movement believes and they are wrong. In fact the states that prohibit such "militias" in law and those laws withstand court scrutiny show that to be true.

If you try to argue in court that you need access to all types of military weapons to be able to overthrow a "perceived tryanncial" government as part of some self designated "miltia" then I think that argument would and should fail miserably.

The STATE miltia was the bulwark against tyranny and the STATES did away with them because they were no longer needed. You say dormant and I say dead in either case it is not around and since the unorganized militia gives the individual no rights, duties or responsibilities then I can see it as a dead letter unless and until a state calls it up which they will not so it is dead right NOW. Since the NG has fulfilled the need the militia as it was in 1789 is no more and will never be again IMO.

Originally Posted by maestro pistolero

Anyone who thinks that scenario is impossible ignores world history at the future's peril.

TEOTWAWKI! It isn't going to happen Maestro and if it does the COTUS won't mean anything anyway.

BTW I just read Patriots by some guy named James Rawles since so many on here believe in the END. What a kooky book! I really liked the cannibal gangs that were also communists! Oh my goodness this guy was FUNNY. How some can read that bilge and believe it is scary. Those are the miltia folks. Also, if we keep talking about militias it may be time to post my famous pic of the modern miltia!

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Your modern miltia!

[ADB]

For civilians, full auto is all about recreational shooting!

Precisely. And it's going to be hard to sell the public as a whole on "legalizing machine guns" (as it would be described by a media too lazy for nuance) for as simple and non-vital a reason as fun.

I would say that if there's any chance of undoing the 1986 closure of the NFA registry, it would be via the courts and the holding of the registry closure as a de facto ban illegal under Heller, with the precedent existing of the 1934 NFA showing that full auto is considered to be a legal form of weapon for civilian ownership.

[maestro pistolero]

Because we read history and see what the militia was. I don't think you do.

Not true, TG. Not only have I read it, my family was in it, with my direct ancestors in this country dating back to about 1730, two years before Washington was born. Many of them fought in the Militias, and then the Continental Army, in Berk's county, PA.

Now, while that doesn't make me any more American than last week's immigrant, nor does it make me a militia expert, I do have an interest and identification with this issue beyond the average citizen. And I have read more than enough from our founders to form a view that's probably very clear as to their intent.

You misread my view completely here:

You look at some commentary from the time and conclude that the individual in some libertarian sense apart from any government or law is the militia. That is not what it was and not what the founders intended it to be. It is the ability of the STATE to raise and arm the militia that the founders protected NOT the "Right" of individuals on their own to form armed militias as they saw fit.

Since you are confused about what I have actually said, you will be surprised to know that I agree with that statement. But the MEANS to arm the militia is spelled out in 2A as private ownership of arms, not state-issued arms as you have repeatedly insisted. And those arms need to be up to the task for the amendment to keep it's teeth, for ALL the purposes for which it was written.

[Al Norris]

The OP's question has been answered -- At least as well as it can be, at this point in time.

I see we've started down the path of the militia, yet again. Tell ya what, Open a Thread on that subject and that subject alone, and we'll leave it open for all to discuss.

But not as a side topic in other threads (I'm waving the ban stick, guys!).

Closed.