|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
May 12, 2009, 08:55 PM | #26 | |
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. |
|
May 12, 2009, 11:44 PM | #27 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
To define it thus, would leave all firearms used for sport (hunting, competition or just plain fun plinking) out in the cold. Common firearms used by civilians for self defense is one set of firearms. Common firearms used by civilians for any sporting purpose is a another set. Then there is the set of firearms that were once in common use by civilians. There is the set of firearms that were not in common use by civilians but are of historical value. If the purpose is to protect what we now have, does anyone see the difficulty of defining "common use" and joining it to "dangerous and unusual?" |
|
May 12, 2009, 11:51 PM | #28 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
no inanimate object can be inherently dangerous.
Any item severely restricted to the public will be rare. A handgun is only as discriminating as its operator. I could put a blind fold on and walk into a kindergarten class and just start swinging, would that be discriminating? If I put a bomb in your car and blow it up when you are driving alone on a country road, is that discriminating. The person using the tool is responsible, not the tool. |
May 13, 2009, 12:09 AM | #29 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 25, 2002
Location: In my own little weird world in Anchorage, Alaska
Posts: 14,172
|
Ithaca Auto/Burglar
Pistol Shotguns Pen Guns Palm Squeezers Knuckle Dusters WildimdangerousandunusualAlaska TM |
May 13, 2009, 12:15 AM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
. . . in common use by civilians for self defense or any other lawful purpose, including, but not limited to, target practice, competition, recreation, entertainment, etc., etc. |
|
May 13, 2009, 12:19 AM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
THX |
|
May 13, 2009, 08:51 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
A chunk of Plutonium is inherently dangerous. It is inanimate. Go sit on it.
John, you need to think beyond cliches. The purpose of the firearm is under discussion. That it itself is inanimate is irrelevant as I pointed out before.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
May 13, 2009, 09:18 AM | #33 | |
Junior member
Join Date: May 16, 2008
Posts: 9,995
|
If select fire AR-15s(M16s if you prefer) were available at the prices they would be if unregulated, they would be very common. My understanding is production cost would be insignificantly more than a semi-auto. I would buy one, most of the guys who shoot would also. I can pretty much guarantee some sort of weekly competitive event would start up at my hunting club. Likely most other clubs ad associations also.
If you stopped new production on single shot bolt action rifles and barrels suitable for high precision target shooting(define by some maximum bullet to barrel OD ratio) for 23 years and put all sorts of restrictions on their transfer and ownership they would become relatively unusual. Quote:
What will pass through the legislature or even the courts? Commonly used for hunting or personal self defense at the present time. I do not think you will be able to get competition included as you can compete with almost any weapon. I think for it to pass it would have to be slightly more restrictive than things are currently and we would all be better off letting the issue sit in its ambiguous state. Last edited by johnwilliamson062; May 13, 2009 at 09:40 AM. |
|
May 13, 2009, 09:51 AM | #34 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Actually, should we even be focusing on defining the "dangerous and unusual" part? Looking at the majority opinion (p.55), the actual language is:
"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time." We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual" weapons." I see a couple of points here. One is that it seems to me that the test is "in common use at the time" and not whether the weapon was "dangerous and unusual." Two, I notice that while the first sentence refers to the right to keep and carry arms, the second talks only about the prohibition on carrying dangerous or unusual arms. There is another sentence worth reading: "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service - M16 rifles and the like, may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause." To me, it seems as if Scalia contemplates the M16 as the type of weapon that may be banned (as not in common use at the time). As the dissent points out, this doesn't make much logical sense (but does solve the thorny problem of not invalidating a whole host of federal firearms laws in one swoop while still protecting an individual right). If we do focus on the "dangerous and unusual" language, then what we really need to define is "unusual." All weapons are by definition dangerous, albeit some more than others. So it seems we are focusing on "unusual" or "not in common use at the time" as the test once again. |
May 13, 2009, 11:12 AM | #35 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Good points, BR.
Yes, focusing on what counts as "unusual" seems a more promising way to go. As I wrote in Part I of this discussion, "...pump shotguns must be about as 'unusual' as F150's..." As Glenn pointed out above, "dangerous" is very much in the eye of the beholder -- but "unusual" could be defined in some objective, i.e. quantitative, way, at least in principle. (Care would be needed in the definition, however, lest it effectively prohibit innovations in design.) While it's possible to argue, qua Yellowfin, that the standard of "in common use at the time" may be "unfairly" influenced by previous restrictions, as in those on FA weapons, I'm not sure this is a useful tactic. I agree with those who've suggested that FA is a "bright line" (where did that expression come from, anyway?) that's not worth pushing at for any number of reasons, including both actual and perceived dangerousness.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
May 13, 2009, 12:56 PM | #36 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
|||
May 13, 2009, 02:47 PM | #37 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
May 13, 2009, 03:21 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Quote:
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
|
May 13, 2009, 04:02 PM | #39 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
May 14, 2009, 04:20 PM | #40 |
Junior Member
Join Date: May 14, 2009
Posts: 1
|
I understand the desire to understand "dangerous and unusual".
But Heller is wrong. The 2nd says "arms", not just FIREarms. And the militia component of the 2nd is perhaps more important than the self-defense aspect that Heller focused upon... . |
May 14, 2009, 04:42 PM | #41 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
Quote:
We must move with determination but with caution as well. We don't want to turn the apple cart over before we've pushed it all the way up the hill. Heller was not meant to be the last minute heroic shot that won the game for us. We've been in the game since 1934 and there's more game to be played. Heller was a victory in that it put a virtual bullet in the head of the group which used to argue for the collective rights theory. We can now move on to other targets, goals, and objectives. But Heller is not a doomsday weapon for us. It was a strategic win, and may help us to more victories, but it didn't end the battle. We must continue to fight to protect more of our RKBA. With states such as California, New Jersey, Illinois, etc, and many federal laws which infringe upon our rights, we've got plenty to do.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
|
May 14, 2009, 06:00 PM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Heller fixed that.
__________________
"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. |
|
|
|