"... shall not be infringed.", say what?

M

Major D Ret.

Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
37
Likes
1
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
Some of our more rabid comrades have taken offense with Mr. Gura's
statement that perhaps there should be limitations on what types of
weapons constitue "arms" suitable for possession by civilians.

It seems we have an element among us that feels we each have a god given right to own a machine gun because the 2nd Amendment
clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, I personally have no objection to our brothers keeping and bearing and shooting and cleaning and polishing and bragging about their machine guns, but I think that maybe their (and my) right to do so ought to be infringed just a little bit. Like maybe a potential buyer ought to get thoroughly checked out by the state and feds before he can take delivery of an automatic weapon - just to insure he's not a terrorist, a nut job, a bank robber, or anything of that ilk.

NOTE: Yes, yes, yes. I know the bullshit already in place relative to the acquisition of a MG. What prompted this post is the way some people are carrying on about about how any restriction on the sale or possession of a full auto weapon is the equivalent to the sinking of the Maine, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and 911 all rolled into one.

If a prospective purchaser has a clean set of bona fides the state should not have the power to block the sale. I 'll just feel more comfortable knowing that any mope with more money than common sense can't walk into a gun store with a pocket full of cash and walk out twenty minutes later with a machine gun. Am I the only
one?

And just what exactly are arms? What are the limits, if any?
How about hand grenades, shoulder fired rocket launchers, claymore mines, and goodies like those. Do you reayy want your neighbors to be able to stock up with that stuff? All of them? I, for one, do not!
(Actually, I'm not really sure what planet some of my neighbors hail from. It's a "diverse" neighborhood.)

So, what do you guys think? Where do we draw the line?

Please excuse me now. I have to get ready for church. We're
throwing my daughter into a volcano at tonight's service -
to make it stop raining in the midwest.

What? Oh yes we can! Read the first amendment!

MAJOR D
 
Major D Ret. said:
Some of our more rabid comrades have taken offense with Mr. Gura's
statement that perhaps there should be limitations on what types of
weapons constitue "arms" suitable for possession by civilians.

It seems we have an element among us that feels we each have a god given right to own a machine gun because the 2nd Amendment
clearly states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Click to expand...

As the .gov insists on having an enormous standing army I would be perfectly comfortable with unrestricted civilian access to military arms, YMMV Major.
 
Yeah, we eat our own. Apparently a number of gun owners are furious with Gura and have been emailing him to express their displeasure for his agreeing that certain restrictions (machine guns), are allowable.

Fortunately the meatheads are in the minority...

email response from Alan Gura

Thanks for your support.

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is,
outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is
intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges. If I had
suggested in any way -- including, by being evasive and indirect and fudging
the answer -- that machine guns are the next case and this is the path to
dumping 922(o) -- I'd have instantly lost all 9 justices. Even Scalia.
There wasn't any question of that, at all, going in, and it was confirmed in
unmistakable fashion when I stood there a few feet from the justices and
heard and saw how they related to machine guns. It was not just my opinion,
but one uniformly held by ALL the attorneys with whom we bounced ideas off,
some of them exceedingly bright people. Ditto for the people who wanted me
to declare an absolute right, like I'm there to waive some sort of GOA
bumper sticker. That's a good way to lose, too, and look like a moron in
the process.

I didn't make the last 219 years of constitutional law and I am not
responsible for the way that people out there -- and on the court-- feel
about machine guns. Some people in our gun rights community have very....
interesting.... ways of looking at the constitution and the federal courts.
I don't need to pass judgment on it other than to say, it's not the reality
in which we practice law. When we started this over five years ago, the
collective rights theory was the controlling law in 47 out of 50 states.
Hopefully, on next year's MBE, aspiring lawyers will have to bubble in the
individual rights answer to pass the test. I know you and many others out
there can appreciate that difference and I thank you for it, even if we
can't get EVERYTHING that EVERYONE wants. Honestly some people just want to
stay angry. I'm glad you're not among them.

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate
change."

Thanks,
Alan
Click to expand...

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=688871&page=1


Joe Olson and I were out drinking with Alan Gura last night, and he was getting a constant stream of emails from machinegun owners on his pda, denouncing his statement that full auto arms' possession might not be protected by the 2nd Amendment.

I think EVERYONE associated with this case who knows anything about appellate argument -- and I've talked to many in that class -- agreed that if you cannot come up with a 2nd Amendment test that lets the government do a lot of things with full autos, you lose. That's bottom line. You can have a second amendment for things other than full auto, or you can have no second amendment. Take your pick, there is no third alternative. Life isn't fair. I was very relieved when the Court showed signs of taking the view that Heller is asking to own a .38, not a Thompson, so we can deal with the full auto issue if and when someone brings a case (which I hope will be about ten years down the road).
Click to expand...

http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2008/03/transcript_of_h.php
 
Major D Ret. said:
Some of our more rabid comrades have taken offense with Mr. Gura's
statement that perhaps there should be limitations on what types of
weapons constitue "arms" suitable for possession by civilians.
Click to expand...

Rabid? Geesh, that's a little harsh. Ok, some of us feel that NFA restrictions are foolish, but I don't think Rabid is the correct term. Rabid would mean that we're crazed & irrational. I hardly think that is the case with most of us here on NES. If you want to call people that have strong feelings about their rights "Rabid", you go ahead. I could call you some names as well, but I'll be ladylike.

Major D Ret. said:
If a prospective purchaser has a clean set of bona fides the state should not have the power to block the sale. I 'll just feel more comfortable knowing that any mope with more money than common sense can't walk into a gun store with a pocket full of cash and walk out twenty minutes later with a machine gun. Am I the only
one?
Click to expand...

Well, as long as YOU feel more comfortable, to hell with our Constitution. No, you're not the only one. The Brady bunch agree with you.
 
I know I am a newbie here. And probably speaking way out of turn and out of line. But, what the hell. And for the record, I DO own class iii and have jumped through all the hoops that go with it.

I agree that there needs to be SOME sort of check to ensure that the potential buyer of ANY firearm has not proven themself a danger to others (felon, insane, habitual drug user etc).

That being said: IF you believe (as I do) that the ultimate purpose of the Second Ammendment IS the ultimate Right of the Citizens to overthrow a tyranical government as well as the codification/ enumeration and reiteration of their God given right to protect themselves and others from whatever threat may arise, then why not?

Machine guns, silencers, grenades, grenade launchers, cannons, mines, whatever is fair game and should be accessable without precondition or hoops. When you get into crew served weapons, I am not sure where to draw the line.

My take is that once you start differentiating good guns from bad guns rather than holding people responsible for their actions you are already on teh slippery slope that is where we have got to today. It also leads to the "who needs an assault weapon?", "who needs a bullett that can shoot through schools?" "The only reason for that is to blow up churches", "no one needs an elephant gun to shoot skeet", that is too accuratee it's a SNIPER guns, that is not accurate enough, it's a saturday night special, it's too big and heavy, it's to shoot down satelites. it's too small and concealable, it is only useful to kill short people, etc, irrational ridiculous arguements that take any sort of rational discourse out of the picture. hold people responsible for their actions, not vilify inanimate objects.

but, I digress...
 
I feel that the Second Amendment should fall under the same scrutiny as the 1st. You're not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun if you're a criminal or are mentally incompetent. Other than that, I think we should be allowed to 'have at it'.

seanc said:
When you get into crew served weapons, I am not sure where to draw the line.
Click to expand...

Well, then that would be a COLLECTIVE right [smile]
 
If you do not like it, then revolt. Just make sure you're on the winning side, otherwise it will be considered treason.

I'm not sure about the rest of the nation, but we have a right to revolution in New Hampshire. Here, I even have a handy dandy link to New Hampshire's Bill Of Rights.

http://www.nh.gov/constitution/billofrights.html

I don't believe not being able to walk into your local gun shop and buying an NFA firearm would constitute grounds for rebellion.
 
Unfortunately the limits are hard to define objectively. It's like that judge who said "I only know the difference between art and porn when I see it".

A good rule of thumb probably is: Would a reasonable person (???) think the item poses considerable risk to a non-consenting third party when the item is used or stored as intended.

Clearly a gun is a lump of metal, and if used properly it shouldn't harm anyone. A MLRS used in suburban Boston would probably be deemed "unsafe" and would conceivably be restricted.
 
I can remember when the AWB was being bandied about, and some brother hunters, trap and skeet shooters said that would not interupt there shooting practices and were okay with it. As I said in past threads any infringment is a loss of freedom no matter how small. For the record at that time I had no desire to own an AW myself but went out and bought a Poly Tech AK and a Colt AR15 as a show of support. I still have both my lovely safe queens.
 
z0mbi said:
I feel that the Second Amendment should fall under the same scrutiny as the 1st. You're not allowed to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and you shouldn't be able to purchase a gun if you're a criminal or are mentally incompetent. Other than that, I think we should be allowed to 'have at it'.
Click to expand...

+1 rep.

That is exactly how I feel. If you aren't a felon or a looney (i.e. you pass the nics background check) then you should be able to own any weapon (with the exception of NBC).

A check to ensure you aren't a felon or have been adjudged mentally incompetent is a reasonable restriction in my opinion, restricting ownership beyond that for full-auto weapons is unreasonable.

Driving is not a right, but a comparison could be that people with drivers licenses are banned from driving SUVs because they use too much gas and could cause more damage in an accident.

Have you ever seen a video of Knob Creek?, people there legally owning belt fed machine guns, destructive devices from a 20mm Solothurn rifle to a 152mm cannon (still in the M551 Sheridan light tank) - I see no blood on the streets. Those things were all legal to buy new not so long ago and you never heard of them being used in crimes.

Besides, with the cost of ammo these days it is cost prohibitive to go crazy with a ma deuce or something similar [wink]
 
Last edited:
Hate to nit-pick, but you still do not own any "Assault Weapons". An AW is defined as having select fire ability. You own Semi-Auto Firearms. This definition of Semi's as AW's is a myth that really needs to be corrected.
 
I have mentioned on another thread that I believe the analogy to the First Amendment is reasonable - that a test for reasonableness should be Holmes' famous "clear and present danger" criterion, from Schenck vs. United States. I was disappointed that the justice's (can't recall which) analogy to anti-libel legislation was tacitly accepted as strong, since I think it is a false analogy to gun control.

That said, I see no clear and present danger from individuals owning machine guns, as I think rate of fire does not set apart machine guns from other firearms.

As to grenades, rockets, RPGs, nuclear bombs, and other explosive devices, I think it would depend on storage and use. I would say that having such devices within close perimeter to many people might be clear and present danger. This wouldn't prevent civilians from owning and storing them in out of the way locales though. The argument against this might be, "Well, if using them is not acceptable, why should someone be allowed to own them?" To which I would say that owning them helps prepare citizens for any forthcoming defense against their own government, or by any invading army. It would serve as tactical asset brinkmanship against both these risks. IOW, if citizens are known to have such weaponry, then government abuse and foreign invasion are rendered far less likely.

And as to background checks, I reject the very idea as un-Constitutional and irrational. If society is uncomfortable with a person owning any weapon, then why are they otherwise free? It is bizarre to suppose that background checks would limit people from obtaining weapons, as is shown every day in the headlines. Background checks imply: We don't trust you with a gun, but otherwise you're OK. ???

Edited to add: I thought about background checks strictly for outstanding felony warrants, but that leads to requiring identification, and possible further abuse by the government - like issuing BS warrants against people found "unsuitable" or some other such garbage. So I nix that idea.

[grin]
 
Last edited:
45 acp said:
I can remember when the AWB was being bandied about, and some brother hunters, trap and skeet shooters said that would not interupt there shooting practices and were okay with it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's how the Englishman lost his balls. United we stand, divided we fall.
 
seanc said:
I know I am a newbie here. And probably speaking way out of turn and out of line. But, what the hell. And for the record, I DO own class iii and have jumped through all the hoops that go with it.

I agree that there needs to be SOME sort of check to ensure that the potential buyer of ANY firearm has not proven themself a danger to others (felon, insane, habitual drug user etc).

That being said: IF you believe (as I do) that the ultimate purpose of the Second Ammendment IS the ultimate Right of the Citizens to overthrow a tyranical government as well as the codification/ enumeration and reiteration of their God given right to protect themselves and others from whatever threat may arise, then why not?

Machine guns, silencers, grenades, grenade launchers, cannons, mines, whatever is fair game and should be accessable without precondition or hoops. When you get into crew served weapons, I am not sure where to draw the line.

My take is that once you start differentiating good guns from bad guns rather than holding people responsible for their actions you are already on teh slippery slope that is where we have got to today. It also leads to the "who needs an assault weapon?", "who needs a bullett that can shoot through schools?" "The only reason for that is to blow up churches", "no one needs an elephant gun to shoot skeet", that is too accuratee it's a SNIPER guns, that is not accurate enough, it's a saturday night special, it's too big and heavy, it's to shoot down satelites. it's too small and concealable, it is only useful to kill short people, etc, irrational ridiculous arguements that take any sort of rational discourse out of the picture. hold people responsible for their actions, not vilify inanimate objects.

but, I digress...
Click to expand...

+1

I think one of the things that constantly gets forgotten when talking about this subject is the fact that at the time the Constitution was written we were a country that was much less reliant on, and much less indoctrinated by - big government.

For a good part of the history of this country people were part of the militia - and it really meant something. What we call nowadays "the country" was something that was determined by the culture, religion, local and state government, etc. It was not something the federal government overlords determined FOR US - as is more and more the case nowadays.
I have not read any history on this - but I would be willing to bet that "back in the old days" there were plenty of people who were restricted from owning guns - but it was done because the guy was known to be the local drunk - or the local jackass, and the "restriction" came because the local community determined that this person was not somebody who they wanted owning a firearm - or having easy access to one. Being part of militia - and therefore a community - meant that you were judged by your peers - and were responsible to them in the end.

Now we have a disconnected culture where people are somewhat considered interchangeable and communities are usually full of people who don't really know each other that well. This has been influenced in large measure by the continual growth of government. If you look at the history the militia system was dismantled in the early 1900's - when the roots of big government were first laid down by the Wilson administration.

I have to say I have always thought that people should be allowed to own machine guns. On the other hand I also believe that there are certain people who probably should not be allowed to own firearms. Having the govt. solve this problem for us - will inevitably lead to a solution we do not like. That is what the govt. is all about - coming up with solutions that nobody likes.

In the end I think the only solution to this will come when people realize that they need to regulate themselves to some degree. Re-instituting a miltia system of some sort - where people can be judged by their peers as to the suitability to own things like machine guns - is as about a fair a system as I can think of - and will honor the purpose of the 2nd amendment by joining people together and providing a powerful countermeasure to the overgrowth of the govt.

Like one of the previous responses said - a system similar to this has worked very well for the Swiss for hundreds of years.
 
calsdad said:
...I have not read any history on this - but I would be willing to bet that "back in the old days" there were plenty of people who were restricted from owning guns - but it was done because the guy was known to be the local drunk - or the local jackass, and the "restriction" came because the local community determined that this person was not somebody who they wanted owning a firearm - or having easy access to one....
Click to expand...
This is a great point calsdad, and it fills in the blanks I left in my own post above. In a free society, people will still have the same concerns they have today, including gun shop owners. I would think it natural that if there are no governmental infringements on weapon purchases that store owners would enact their own policy, like that they either know the buyer to be OK, or someone they do know to be OK vouches for them. It's not unlike a bartender voluntarily refusing to serve someone they see is slobbering drunk.

[grin]
 
About yelling fire in a theater. You can but if you do and no one is in the theater nothing happens. If there really is a fire and you get many people out and save lives you most likely will be considered a hero, but if you yell fire when there is none and peoples lives are lost in the panic to get out than you will be prosecuted.
They don't hand out muzzles before you enter a theater.
It is supposed to be presumption of innocence not guilt but unfortunately there are a number of gun owners that automatically consider you dangerous if you want to conceal carry or carry or if you own an AR an AK or have mags. that hold more than 5 or 10 rds.
They foolishly believe that if we did not have access to these things that the anti-gunners would leave us alone, nothing could be further than the truth. Their goal is to disarm all citizens so that the balance of power is in their hands.
As the saying goes it's not about gun control it's about control.
 
Seems to me that DC and a number of other states already drew their line. No guns and no access. Now Mass on the other hand drew their line at maybe, maybe not. They went after the guns and now they are after the ammo so where should we draw that line? Should honest John gun owners rights be infringed because someone decides to do a drive by? How about blaming the state government and police for that. Should the next guys rights be infringed because some mental case decided to off himself? How about blaming the same government that shut down all the mental institutions in the 80s where that person might have gotten the help they needed. Same with the luny that goes to the gun free zones to blow people away.

When we start talking about restrictions, how about if we put some on the government first and then we go from there!
 
Actually the BOR is a restriction on the Govt. but they pay no attention to it. To them it is just a GD piece of paper.
 
After listening to the audio on C-Span it seemed the Conservative Justices were more interested in establishing what was a "Common" arm, and that the 2nd amendment protects "common" arms like rifles, handguns etc... And they thought a MG was uncommon (obviously, it is hard to get one), but then the lawyer said, well there are around 100k privately owned MGs in the US right now...


Also, does the 1st amendment only apply to "Common" presses?? course not, ridiculous that the 2nd amendment gets shat on and the 1st is viewed under way more "strict scrutiny"
 
calsdad said:
+1


I have not read any history on this - but I would be willing to bet that "back in the old days" there were plenty of people who were restricted from owning guns - but it was done because the guy was known to be the local drunk - or the local jackass, and the "restriction" came because the local community determined that this person was not somebody who they wanted owning a firearm - or having easy access to one. Being part of militia - and therefore a community - meant that you were judged by your peers - and were responsible to them in the end.
Click to expand...

I would bet that was the case, and something that would be far more agreeable than a representative of the people of California legislating the daily lives of the people of Vermont.
 
Here's a question: if the founders thought the Second Amendment was necessary (at least in part) so that armed citizens could overthrow a corrupt government....

Could we?

Some of our members have some great hardware out there, but up against a modern military (scenes from "RED DAWN" aside), what chance do we really have armed with our NES logo AR home-builts and an ammo can full of 5.56?

Sure there is the numerical superiority...

Sure we can count on some of the military refusing to obey orders...

But if we could not physically accomplish what was intended 200 (+) years ago, is the Second Amendment already half in the grave?
 
peterpressure said:
After listening to the audio on C-Span it seemed the Conservative Justices were more interested in establishing what was a "Common" arm, and that the 2nd amendment protects "common" arms like rifles, handguns etc... And they thought a MG was uncommon (obviously, it is hard to get one), but then the lawyer said, well there are around 100k privately owned MGs in the US right now...


Also, does the 1st amendment only apply to "Common" presses?? course not, ridiculous that the 2nd amendment gets shat on and the 1st is viewed under way more "strict scrutiny"
Click to expand...

The reason MGs are "uncommon" is due to the 86 ban driving up the prices on previously registered full-auto firearms.

If not for the supply and demand aspect, affordable MGs would be in many more gun owners hands (including moi [smile]).

Now the only problem would be bring able to afford feeding it. [sad2]
 
Oooh, I see I have kicked a skunk.

A little clarification is in order.

RABID is a term of endearment! It applies to those of us who take
the words "shall not be infringed" literally. Staunch defenders of freedom to be sure, with their hearts and minds unquestionably pointed in the right direction, but have have they considered the possibilities of a literal interpretation taken to the n'th degree - nuke wise that is? Or, would they draw the line at sarin, tabun, and vx?

How would I feel in Switzerland? Relatively comfortable actually,
considering most of the people with machine guns in their closets
have, at the very least, successfully completed basic training.

Stiill no takers on my crack about human sacrifice. Looks like you have to say it's consttutionally protected if you're a strict constructionist. But of course that dosen't mean you necessarily approve of it.

MAJOR D
 
Turn back the clock to 1775. The British Army was armed primarily with the Brown Bess musket, a .75 caliber smoothebore. What were the colonists carrying? Comparable weapons. Would the Revolution succeed if the colonists were armed with inferior arms?

What do our government soldiers carry? Does the populace of the United States carry comparable arms to them?
 
Ok, I am in the boat where I don't like the hoop jumping for MG's etc. But here is the thing. We are dealing with people who are NOT in the sport, and in general a populace that has been brainwashed by the MSM that Guns = Bad.

SCOTUS is in a very very unique position as it is making precident with this case. If you want to push for them to toss out MG rules then game is over. Hand over your guns and talk to your kids about the good old days. Because without a doubt if Heller is ruled in DC's favor our rights are boned and odds are only way to get them back is a full on revolt.

All this talk of All-or-Nothing as far as this case goes, we will get nothing. And much like Poker, trials sometimes are not about the law on the books but the butts in the seats who will decide the outcome.
 

Similar threads

What not to do with your new gun.
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
Coyote33
Coyote33
My eyes are not what they used to be.
Replies
15
Views
497
M1911
M1911
I'm not sure what to think of this
2
Replies
33
Views
707
chris_1001
chris_1001
state police nipped this one in the bud: wonder what the legal outcome will be?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
Dadstoys
Dadstoys
Preban or not
2 3
Replies
65
Views
2K
not new guy
N
Back
Top Bottom