|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
September 9, 2012, 09:59 AM | #26 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Eghad
Quote:
Originally posted by Odd Quote:
Last edited by Webleymkv; September 9, 2012 at 11:17 AM. |
||
September 9, 2012, 10:52 AM | #27 | |
Member
Join Date: August 24, 2011
Location: Enjoying snacks by the fo
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
__________________
Victim: A hapless individual who waits for third party intervention and/or gambles their life on what little good remains in the heart of their attacker. |
|
September 9, 2012, 10:55 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
A new AWB, which I gravely doubt would be passed - I have a bet on this with a conservative buddy - could face constitutional challenge.
However, it would come up against the Heller view of reasonable restriction. Are the semi auto military derivative guns so inherently dangerous that they could be reasonably restricted? We might argue that they have utility for sport but is the risk (in rampages, organized gangs, etc.) too great? After all, most all hunting purposes can be handled by single shot Ruger Model 1s or a bolt gun. Carbine matches (which I love) aren't worth the risk. The Second isn't about sport or deer or birdies. The Second is about self-defense, defense of country and defense against tyranny. The semi auto military derivative guns - do they contribute to these? If I were a reasonable restriction sort of guy (say Scalia who hunts biridies with Cheney - duck - double entendre) - I might argue that you can reasonably defend your house with a handgun and pump shotgun. You might argue for AW self-defense based on Katrina or LA Riot scenarios but would Scalia-oids buy that? Certainly the antis wouldn't. Low probability and not worth the countervailing use in rampages and crime. Defense of country - despite judges from TX who think the UN is coming up I-35 to get them, after stopping to refuel the 1st Botswana Armored Divsion and Fighting Luxemoburg Special Forces with BBQ and chicken-fried steak in Waco - is hard to justify. We are not going to be invaded. The Yamamoto quote about WWII can't be reliably sourced and isn't evidence for such. Wolverines are animals, shoes and a superhero. We are left with a clear justification - defense against tyranny - probably due to government gone wild. Now, tyranny can come from the left or right extremes. Spare me conspiracies based on current players. Neither current party can institute a real tyranny unless you are wearing a tin foil hat. But, it can happen. Germany was a civilized country in 1913 but by the mid 30's become one of the greatest monsters the world has even seen. It can happen anywhere. The social psychology is clear if the circumstances become extreme. Thus, a reservoir of force in the general populace buffers against that. I note that genocide research indicates that minorities don't become victims if they have a reasonable chance of SD - you might get a civil war but that's horribly better than a genocide. Would the SCOTUS buy defense against tyranny? I note one 'ahem' I debated on another forum denies that a populace could resist a government and thus saw no need to own the guns in question for that purpose. We would be shelled and bombed. However, that says a lot about the American fighting men and women - I doubt that would happen. Also, it shows an ignorance of force levels. Even our full armed forces could not occupy, so to speak, our entire country. Some folks point to the Warsaw ghetto to say fighting against tyrants is hopeless - but the Jews didn't have preknowledge of the horror that was oncoming. Bad example. However, if as this 'ahem' suggested - we cannot defend against tyranny, the 'ahem' has given the SCOTUS reason for an AWB. Note, it wouldn't work practically, see DOJ research. Yes, we all could handle the vast majority of SD with SW Model 10s The rare intensive incident isn't worth the risk of the semis. So give up using hunting, sport and even average home SD to defend the guns in question. There is a better reason. They should be owned to protect liberty and act as an innoculation against tyranny.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 9, 2012, 11:18 AM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
"...Heller view of reasonable restriction"
Really? Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Breyer are all on the record to go beyond what an AWB would call for. AWB would be mild in comparison to what they would do. We know for a fact what would happen if Kennedy were replaced by POTUS in second term. But fortunately, AWB is DOA. Unfortunately D.C. and Chicago and California and ... are all passing one bad law after another so AWB is the least likely way "Constitutional" restriction will be placed on the Second Amendment. Stupid state laws would go up to "reformed" SCOTUS and bye bye. Unless a Federal law gets passed, unlikely as long as House stays as is, and makes its way up to SCOTUS, then we will have a checker board of good/bad state laws. |
September 9, 2012, 11:35 AM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
I was discussing theory given the current decision. That was my point.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 9, 2012, 11:56 AM | #31 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,446
|
Originally posted by Odd
Quote:
I am aware of no case in which a less lenient state or local law supercedes federal law for some sort of "reverse preemption". I do know, however, of several cases in which federal law is more restrictive than state law and thus supercedes it. For example, in my home state of Indiana, the minimum age to obtain a License to Carry a Handgun is 18 years old. That has been state law since, IIRC, the 1930's well before there were any federal minimum age requirements for handgun ownership or purchase. Federal law, however, dictates a minimum age of 21 years old to buy a handgun or handgun ammunition from an FFL, so while you may get your license to carry at 18 in Indiana, you still cannot buy the gun or ammo from an FFL for another three years. Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer Quote:
Originally posted by jmortimer Quote:
|
|||
September 9, 2012, 01:01 PM | #32 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
A robust 2A is essential as the final barrier and insurance against the development of a extra constitutional government. I believe that as long as we have a strong 2A, that the price of tyranny will remain too high for those who may aspire to it.
But resisting tyranny also depends on other factors and assumptions: That the government would not be willing to decimate it's people and it's infrastructure to achieve it. That there are patriots at all levels of government who would help obstruct and sabotage such an effort. That enough soldiers and police would refuse to obey unlawful orders so that the congruity of the would-be tyrannical force would fall apart. There is ample history of civilian ownership of military small arms in the US. With the exception of the now highly regulated select-fire weapons, and now the effectual ban due to the Hughes amendment, there have been no special restrictions whatsoever. Indeed, for many, many years the DCM has supplied Garands to competitors in the interest of encouraging civilian marksmanship skills. When was the last time a Garand, or an M1A was used in a robbery? The M1 Garand, of course, is responsible in no small part for stopping perhaps the most infamous tyrant of all. And with the exception of clip vs magazine functionality, there is no performance disadvantage whatsoever of a Garand vs it successors, the M14 (M1A civilian version) and the semi-auto AR15. Finally, although the Heller decision found historical bases for individual self-protection, hunting, recreation, etc., it was careful not to leave the impression that the only declared purpose in the Amendment was not a dead letter: Quote:
Note the court did NOT say that the prefatory clause was detached. Quote:
|
||
September 9, 2012, 04:03 PM | #33 | |||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Joining in on this subject, I think we need to go back to what the majority wrote in Heller about arms:
Quote:
Quote:
For the fed.gov to enact another "assault weapons ban," it would be necessary to prove that such banned firearms were in fact "dangerous and unusual." This, neither the Legislature nor the Executive can do. For these very same firearms are, in fact, in common use at this time. There is nothing reasonable about banning firearms that are 1) in common use and 2) are neither "dangerous and unusual." And no, some simple "finding" in a legislative act, does not make common firearms, dangerous or most especially, unusual. It is way past a time where such authority is invested in the legislature, via the Commerce Clause (see National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) Individual States authorities, are another matter. They will be harder to challenge (see Haynie et. al. v. Harris). While I admire Donald Kilmer, I believe this suit to be unwinnable at this time (i.e. before the right to carry is firmly established). Individual States are given greater latitude (the federalism concept) to manage their own spheres of influence. FYI: Webleymkv? AK, AZ, ID, MT, SD, TN, UT and WY have all passed Firearms Freedom Acts. The Case/State you are thinking of is Montana: Montana Shooting Sports Associ, et al v. Eric Holder, Jr.. Currently on appeal to the 9th Circuit. Briefing was completed on 08-04-2011 but was stayed pending Nordyke. Case: 10-36094. Quote:
|
|||
September 9, 2012, 06:35 PM | #34 |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Actually, I read Heller as coming out pretty strongly against blanket bans of weapons by category or type. Another AWB would fall under that criteria.
I really doubt the Court could find such a thing constitutional without contradicting a decision that's not even five years old.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
September 9, 2012, 06:46 PM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
So it is pretty clear that a new AWB would have to have significant changes in the court's current makeover to just overturn precedent. That could happen but so unlikely.
A specific attack on the semi military type guns would have to reinterpret that weapon as being some extraordinary risk as to overcome the cited passages. I don't think we will see it - even if one presidential candidate regards them as weapons only useful for killing.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 10, 2012, 09:15 AM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
Quote:
Either way, any AWB, if it actually becomes law, would definitely be buying a bunch of lawyers a bunch of nice homes. |
|
|
|