September 13, 2009, 09:08 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by maestro pistolero Then what would be the point of stating a militia purpose and then protecting keeping and bearing for that purpose? Quote:
As soon as professional forces could be deployed it's all moot. The critical, immediate need for defense in an emergency is the only scenario I can imagine where a modern militia might be temporarily called upon. In that case, the wisdom of individual keeping and bearing becomes as relevant as it was in the late 1700s. It's like a bunch of privately owned fire extinguishers vs a fire truck and crew. Great points, TG. And I see your point on the bright line being semi-auto ARs for civilians. I like the idea of paralleling standard issue firearms from our military, because that may be a moving target. Rather than move the line in the sand, we could establish now that those not prohibited from possessing firearms may have a standard issue firearm, whatever that means that year. The problem is that some states are banning even the semi-auto versions. In CA there is a 10 round limit, and no detachable magazines allowed for ARs with standard features. It horrible for those residents (I used to be one, before the ban). CA just passed the ammo registration bill requiring, among other things, fingerprints for ammo. And they banned shows at the Cow Palace in the Bay area. Both measures are awaiting signature from Gov. Swarzenegger. It's unbelievable how far from center a few states have gone. Last edited by maestro pistolero; September 13, 2009 at 09:57 PM. |
|
September 13, 2009, 10:08 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
Quote:
Last edited by csmsss; September 13, 2009 at 10:14 PM. |
|
September 13, 2009, 10:09 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
Here's the problem, TG, with the state government being in charge of loaning you the heavy firepower when you need it: What happens if the enemy you need to defend yourself from is them? As you stated earlier, self defense is anything from a burgler all the way up to the Soviet Army. The problem is what if your country's own army is acting like the Soviet Army? You and I both know that's happened almost everywhere else but here, and even here a few times. Got any Native American in your genes? If so, somewhere in your family's past there was genocide that very well could have involved them needing to defend themselves against it. Exactly what kept Japanese American internment from being a massive slaughter, if it could have been justified and/or covered up? Virtually nothing, as far as anything they could have done about it, unless they were to take armed resistance. (Did any do so?)
I don't think we should forget the Colfax massacre, either, or the numerous coal miners' revolts. Yes, folks, our own state, local, and federal governments can and have been at times very, very bad people.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
September 13, 2009, 11:35 PM | #29 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Anyway, as I have posted in other threads on TFL, I do not believe the simple ownership of firearms by citizens protect us from tryannical government. Our democratic institutions do and even with blatant abuses like NO after Katrina, those institutions stop and put right those abuses. But that is another thread.
__________________
"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. |
||
September 14, 2009, 02:13 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
In Tennessee I would perhaps be more confident that democracy and its institutions form an effective buffer against tyranny. Having lived in California and now in New York has shown that to be of little assurance to me at all.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
September 14, 2009, 03:03 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Today it could be argued that we have as much, or more to fear from state governments than the feds. Any medium-sized state government today is multiples larger and more powerful than than the entire Federal Government at the time of founding. The states had relationships to the people more akin to a local governments today. That's why they weren't as suspicious of them, because local government was closely held, and you knew everybody.
Last edited by maestro pistolero; September 14, 2009 at 03:24 PM. |
September 14, 2009, 03:53 PM | #32 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,461
|
Confusing the organised militia with the militia, then invoking the state's power to call forth, rather than raise, the militia doesn't serve clarity in making sense of the 2d am. right.
Quote:
I find the money some people pay for FA arms stunning. If people buy these things at a grotesque premium as well as a $200 tax, this indicates a large and unstatisfied demand. While we can't give a precise number of FA owners in the absence of these impediments, we must conclude that FA would be far more common without them. The original point about the circularity of the putative government argument that FA arms are subject to restriction becuase they are uncommon, where it the government itself making it less common, yields to the state the power to invalidate any possession merely by the act of invalidating it. That is no right at all. Just after WWII, very few people had or could afford a car that topped 100mph. As technology advanced and we became wealthier, ownership of vehicles that could do this increased to the point that most ordinary passenger cars can do this, even though there are very few places that this ability can be legally demonstrated. Anti-lock-brakes, cellular telephones, cable television and dozens of other consumer goods we consider ubiquitous are so merely because the government doesn't prohibit them and we like having them. There is little reason to suppose that FA arms should be different.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
September 14, 2009, 03:55 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Search on Switzerland - they are reducing their armed forces and there are serious moves to restrict gun ownership and control those military guns.
It ain't the gun cliche anymore.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
September 14, 2009, 05:19 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 2, 2008
Posts: 279
|
I think the OP makes an excellent point that I had not ever considered, namely that full auto weapons are uncommon because of restrictions.
But how to get the federal ban on new autos lifted? A political impossibility for the near future. One hope might be to create a "loop hole" for full auto trigger groups that may not be transferred with a complete weapon. |
September 14, 2009, 06:04 PM | #35 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
As an example, most states didn't even have shall issue CCW licensing 10 years ago. Now they comprise the great majority of the states. Could you imagine the uproar if the states with shall-issue CCW suddenly repealed it? Let folks get a taste of freedom, and they want more and more of it. People get from government what they demand of it. |
|
September 14, 2009, 08:48 PM | #36 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
I think the problem with the argument is showing that they were ever in common use. We now have a more affluent society with more disposible income so that might account for the demand today coupled with a fixed supply that causes high prices. There were only 118,000 FA weapons (according to Antipitas) in circulation in 1986 before the registry closed out of hundreds of millions of other type guns. Doesn't sound like to me they were in common use ever.
__________________
"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. |
|
September 14, 2009, 10:23 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
I doubt you'll ever be able to prove they were in common use in the US. They were restricted with a substantial (for the time) tax when the technology for shoulder-fired automatics was still relatively new. We are talking about technologies newer than the GE mini-gun is to us.
|
September 14, 2009, 11:21 PM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
|
|
September 15, 2009, 09:25 AM | #39 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Good point.
I was referring to the argument presented earlier, which I may have misunderstood. I thought it was being argued that select-fire weapons would not be currently "unusual" without the NFA restrictions, and it was being argued that they were non unusual at one point (before the NFA). |
September 15, 2009, 09:44 AM | #40 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I further assert that were they to become unrestricted today very few numbers of those that own firearms would buy them. I think that would be analogous to the % of those that CCW as measured against those who own firearms.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2009 at 10:05 AM. |
||||
September 15, 2009, 10:53 AM | #41 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,461
|
Arguing that something a hundred thousand people still have three decades after further supply was banned seems like a dead end. I don't know that there are a 100,000 purple italian silk ties in the country, but that would not make such a thing rare. The term "common" really begs the question, "Common for what?".
Quote:
The OP's point is that the government shouldn't be able to prohibit an item as uncommon where it is the government's act that produces the uncommon quality of the item. That reasoning doesn't hinge on the item once having been common. The reasoning he critiques still rests on a fallacy of circular reasoning, since that reasoning begs the question of why it is currently less common than it might have been otherwise.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
September 15, 2009, 11:23 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Quote:
You have said yourself that the state would likely supply weapons should it call forth a militia. You may be right, but why would that be? Could it be that that weapons that would be provided by the citizens would not be up to the task, that ammunition supply would be a chaotic prospect, and that it would be impossible to well-regulated (train, standardize, etc) a militia so armed? Oops, an unregulated militia? Wouldn't that run afoul of the amendment? Clearly the Amendment intended for the people to have (keep) and have at-the-ready (bear) the sorts of arms that would be suitable for service. Not that they should wait for the government to hand them out. Today, that would be a long, long wait. To abandon for a moment the select-fire argument, the standardization of training, arms and ammo could be accomplished with commonly held semi-auto AR15s, provided the chambering was 5.56 and not .223, except in California, and a few other recalcitrant, 2A-challenged states. It might be well enough if we could count on the issue of the restriction of select-fire being the only departure from the military versions of these weapons that was ever to be required, but CA and others have shown that incremental, relentless bites out 2A rights will never end, and can only result in choking any remaining life out of an already eviscerated 2A. So, TG, the line in the sand? The bright line, as you say. Where to put it, and how to keep it there? |
|
September 15, 2009, 01:27 PM | #43 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Great discussion.
First of all the way the states chose to arm their militia is not IMO what the 2A was about. What I mean is that the idea that militia would only be armed by citizen's bringing their own weapons to the fight is not enshrined in the 2A. The states chose that method in the 1700s because guns were expensive, and most everybody had them anyway and there was great commonality with what was used on the battlefield. For warfare at that time it made sense but the 2A did not say that was the only way the state could do it. The states may equally choose not to use that method and supply a militia they called up with weapons the state provided. Even back then that was done to a limited degree in some states where those in larger towns didn't own a gun. Today it would make much more sense logistically were a state to raise and form a militia to supply the arms and equipment. Commonality of ammo, spare parts etc. Also, keep in mind how the militia functioned. My readings show they were organized, trained, had leaders and answered to the government. This is contrary to what some on TFL believe and they mistakenly feel a militia is merely a group of citizens who happen to own guns. I wouldn't see a state just raising a militia pell mell with no organization, training or coherence and then trying to issue weapons. I would see something much more deliberate IMO. Of course many of the Founding Fathers turned away from the republican ideal of a citizens militia after they found out they didn't work too well. Quote:
However, if a state so chose to raise a militia, they could do so thru legislation and equip their force with whatever small arms they wished OR they could authorize legitimate members to provide them privately and I don't think the BATFE would be able to successfully prosecute them for violating the NFA since at that point the weapons would be property of and related to the recognized state militia. Maybe that is a possbility. Montana I'm thinking? A real irony here for me in these arguments is how the polar opposites politically argue the same issue. The antigunners want the 2A to be coupled with service in the militia so they can ban privately owned guns because the militia is defunct. Some progunners want to own military weaponry and so they try to link the militia service with the individual right as well! Kind of funny to me. Heller decoupled the 2A properly in my opinion. States have a right to raise and arm their militias if they choose and the individual has the right to private ownership of firearms for self-defense. Further firearms not in common use by civilians can be restricted or banned by the state. Caveat; I am making no defense of CA gun control laws much of which which I disagree with (and SCOTUS may too after incorporation) nor am I defending FOPA 1986 Hughes Amendment which some argue is a de facto ban on FA.
__________________
"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; September 15, 2009 at 01:32 PM. |
|
September 15, 2009, 02:26 PM | #44 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,461
|
Quote:
I note the following because I know it has been brought to TG's attention, and to ignore those facts obscures the issue. Quote:
The militia is a stautorily defined population. Its definition does not include organisation, training, leadership or fealty to government. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
While one fellow may have ideas about national defense, another about freedom of speech and assembly, and another about the limits of reasonable search and seizure, the value and heft of civil rights are eroded if they are effectively subject to amendment or disregard simply becuase someone thought he had a better idea about government and peoples' rights.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; September 15, 2009 at 02:59 PM. |
|||||
October 7, 2009, 10:25 PM | #45 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Alan Gura's Take
This thread is old but I came across this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Df7CS...eature=related and thought he gave a good synopsis on where law is now. Watch from about 4:24 to 6:54.
__________________
"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 7, 2009, 11:14 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2007
Location: Lancaster Co, PA
Posts: 2,311
|
Gura has to take the position he has because currently he is presenting cases before the Supreme Court and will have several more in the future. He doesn't want to scare any judges who would be on the fence that he may need to rule our way.
__________________
Students for Concealed Carry on Campus http://www.concealedcampus.org "You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws--that's insane!" - Penn Jillette |
October 7, 2009, 11:17 PM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
I don't know Gura but I think he is a man of his word and would not so falsely posture in this type of forum. I think he is telling it like he sees it to those who are interested. What he argues to the court is yet another thing.
__________________
"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 8, 2009, 12:52 AM | #48 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 1, 2008
Location: Athens, GA
Posts: 1,436
|
Interesting read folks, but what it boils down to is this:
Not enough people are intersted in NFA items to change the laws. We seem to forget that we are the government, electing people to represent us. Get enough citizens interested in owning an NFA weapon, and we can make some changes. Until then, all the other arguments don't really matter. |
October 8, 2009, 02:18 AM | #49 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,153
|
Good find, TG. Thanks for that.
|
October 8, 2009, 08:27 AM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
I also like the way he dealt with the circular issue with what "in common use" means and how they would deal with that in legal argument.
Gura represents to me the real power of the gun rights movement today in that he (and many others) is a libertarian and not a traditional right winger. By making the tent bigger we get stronger.
__________________
"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. |
|
|