Can ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazines Be Banned After Bruen..

SomeSoldier · Oct 8, 2022

How about, fuck all that. Shall not be infringed!

spat · Oct 8, 2022

SomeSoldier said:
How about, fuck all that. Shall not be infringed!

The only problem with the 2A is that it does not include a penalty for violating it.

In the very least any legislator who votes for a law that is found to violate the 2A should be ineligible to hold any office ever again.

That should hold for executives who sign such a law as well.

SomeSoldier · Oct 8, 2022

spat said:
The only problem with the 2A is that it does not include a penalty for violating it.

In the very least any legislator who votes for a law that is found to violate the 2A should be ineligible to hold any office ever again.

That should hold for executives who sign such a law as well.

I think it should go a step farther and they were should be prosecuted for sedition.

Saltwater60 · Oct 8, 2022

The short answer is no, getting there will take time.

Uninformed and Compliant · Oct 8, 2022

spat said:
The only problem with the 2A is that it does not include a penalty for violating it.

In the very least any legislator who votes for a law that is found to violate the 2A should be ineligible to hold any office ever again.

That should hold for executives who sign such a law as well.

There's other laws that cover it.

As I mentioned - state has Coercion and criminal facilitation etc, and Feds have that and violation of civil rights et al.

Acer-m14 · Oct 8, 2022

i like watching his videos .. you learn and it makes you think .. so i am thinking ,,

this was for gun / mag bans .. you only get step 1

now on permits ..

i think would hit the step 2 part ..

now we go back to history and look again ..

in 1791 did they have pistol and rifle permits and background checks .. ??

ArmedCorgi · Oct 8, 2022

Acer-m14 said:
in 1791 did they have pistol and rifle permits and background checks .. ??

No.

Grimscale · Oct 9, 2022

I don't agree there should be a "commonly possessed" clause.
There is nothing in the 2nd stating we can only keep and bear something that we've already kept for a long time. this would effectively deny any new style of arms as they cannot have been "commonly possessed". Under this argument tazers, railguns, lasers, etc., could effectively be banned.

livingston said:
As much as the liberals claim they champion civil rights. ... They make a false claim.

Don't kid yourself. BOTH sides make false claims when it comes to Rights. It's just a matter of which Rights they intend on infringing first.
We The People NEED some way to hold rogue politicians responsible when they infringe on the Constitution. Not just expelling them from office. It has to be something that will make other politicians think twice about following in those tyrannical footsteps.

All of the complaints we have about heil hochul's bail ~~elimination~~ reform at the micro scale is just as accurate when it comes to the macro scale of political positions.

John Stark · Oct 9, 2022

Grimscale said:
I don't agree there should be a "commonly possessed" clause.
There is nothing in the 2nd stating we can only keep and bear something that we've already kept for a long time. this would effectively deny any new style of arms as they cannot have been "commonly possessed". Under this argument tazers, railguns, lasers, etc., could effectively be banned.

The phrase used by the Court was "in common use." The phrase used by the Court as part of making the determination of what falls under "in common use" was derived from the Miller decision, which basically gave the standard "dangerous and unusual weapons," and basically took the stance along the lines of "what people would show up with that was commonly used by civilians at the time, and that they would show up with when called up as a militia."

Its NOT about weapons being in "common use" as determined by the number in usage. This is a huge mistake that even the big gun rights groups make. We have to break down the notion of "dangerous and unusual weapons" as a standard to grok this.

My contention has always been that this standard must be something along the lines of "technology that has proven safe and effective."

We know guns are effective (even Fudds would admit that, based on the deer they take with their guns), so lets answer the "dangerous" part of the standard.

Are guns dangerous? Of course they are... if mishandled, which is probably the vast number of injuries and deaths caused by someone pulling the trigger "by accident." However, its also possible that gun could be defective. Maybe less so today with machined parts and factory/industry standards, but it is possible that a batch of weapons could be defective because of a bad CAD or milling set up, a flaw in the design not caught before going into productions, human error, poor production standards or testing, and so on.

I would liken this somewhat to automobiles or other machines; a machine that is not properly designed, crafted, tested, and so on, is "dangerous" and maybe "unusual" (new machines that go to market based on very new and radical designs, materials, etc.).

If the "dangerous" standard meant simply, "it could hurt or kill someone" then you are right to point out that "in common use" would ban almost ALL arms. Guns, just like swords, daggers, pikes, bows, etc., are all Arms that are dangerous in that sense, and all of those and many many more were obviously around for centuries and even millennia and used "safely" by their bearers.

The question of "dangerous and unusual" must then turn in a different direction.

My take is that it means standard technology, or craftsmanship, that has been proven to be safe to employ for its intended purpose.

A sword is useful to defend oneself in a pre-firearms culture, and in fact obviously still is in certain situations, just as a wagon wheel is still "in common use." The implements might change in terms of materials, but there are still people today who employ old fashioned wagon wheels and carts (like the Amish).

I would also note that your statement "Under this argument tazers, railguns, lasers, etc., could effectively be banned." Is not correct, as per the Cetano decision, wherein they essentially upheld the Right to self defense of a woman arrested for employing a taser against her attacker. Tasers and that technology have been upheld by the Supremes as "in common use" even though they may not be anywhere close to the preferred method of self-defense based on the number of them sold and "in use."

EVs are all the rage right now, but is that technology dangerous to the user? Like any vehicle, they can obviously be dangerous if a user is not careful in their driving habits, but that does not make them "dangerous" per se. If the technology is defective and can cause harm when it fails, then it would be "dangerous" in the sense that the Miller decision meant, and which Scalia leaned into somewhat when he wrote Heller.

We have not seen Jetsons style "flying cars" yet, and until we do, it would be prudent to make sure "flying cars" are safe for their intended use before we would call them "common use technology" that is not "dangerous and unusual." Different technology than weaponry obviously, but its the same principle.

Now let's apply that. Are full auto firearms "protected" arms under the way I am describing the standard? Was the technology safe? Was that technology in "common use" in that sense and safely usable (safely as in no defects of craftsmanship that would injure the user and any bystanders nearby when the technology was employed)? The answer to that is a resounding YES. Further, before the unconstitutional NFA, they were not illegal to own or buy, there were no background checks for them, and the only restriction on buying them or owning them was the price tag for most people. Even today, full auto is NOT illegal for the purposes of Keeping and Bearing, it is simply prohibitive for most people because of the NFA hoops to jump through, and because the flow of full autos was bottle necked in '86 when the sale of newly manufactured full autos was prohibited, leaving the market for full autos only in the realm of "pre-ban" and a limited supply of "used" guns, so to speak.

Even in this video, Mark Smith makes a similar errors, relying on numbers of weapons "in common use" and talking about "bearable arms" as a baseline standard. Bearable in what sense? Those a man can carry. However, that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that for millennia, men did Bear (carry) their arms on horseback or wagons/carts drawn by horses that they controlled. A mounted cavalry man may well have a dagger, sword, or hand gun on his hip while riding a horse or in a wagon of carriage of some sort, but we all know that mounted men also would carry their heavier weaponry on their transport, whether rifles or shot guns, spare handguns or swords or daggers, including grenades, pikes lances, and many many other implements of self defense and civilian and military usage.

"Common" use means "technology or craftsmanship" that has been accepted as safe, useful, and effective for daily use, and such that most people either understands how it works, or can readily educate themselves in order to understand its operation and the safe means to employ it.

We see this all throughout the history of mankind, and the entire history of our nation. New technology and craftsmanship has literally exploded onto the market. Not everyone even understands how it works, but a LOT of it is in "common use" because the designers and the makers of it and the engineers and "experts" say it is.

How many people understand tensile strength and what that means in terms of crossing a bridge in their cars and trucks, not understanding even the motors or transmissions that move the vehicles they are employing? And yet bridges and cars and trucks are certainly "in common use" and not "dangerous and unusual" in the least.

Are grenades "dangerous and unusual" in this sense? No. They can be kept on the shelf "loaded and ready to fire" just like a gun on "safe" and they will never harm anyone (except maybe if there is a fire), and we know they can be employed in a safe manner and their design is not "unusual" technology at all.

Grimscale · Oct 10, 2022

John Stark said:
"Common" use means "technology or craftsmanship" that has been accepted as safe, useful, and effective for daily use

John Stark said:
derived from the Miller decision, which basically gave the standard "dangerous and unusual weapons,"

The problem here is basic understanding of language by an average person.

"Common use" is far too easily defined as "many people already have these and use them". Both the pro-gun and anti-gun groups are basically using it in this fashion. Just the argument for AR15s alone I keep hearing "there are millions in circulation", rather than "they are built using aluminum, which is stronger and more reliable than printed plastic".

Similarly, people hear "dangerous and unusual" and immediately think of weapons that might inflict more damage than some vague "acceptable" level. Or weapons that are not just simple projectile throwers.

Most people would think grenades ARE "dangerous and unusual" in that they more often maim rather than kill, and the average person doesn't own any.

This leads to confusion.

John Stark said:
Bearable in what sense? Those a man can carry. However, that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that for millennia, men did Bear (carry) their arms on horseback or wagons/carts drawn by horses that they controlled.

Yet another place where confusion over a word is leading to curtailment of our Rights.

Even on this forum I've read people's opinions that "keep and bear" applies only to those weapons an infantryman would be able to carry himself.
Yet our forefathers were able to "keep and bear" full warships!
Assuming I win the lottery, why can't I purchase and possess a surplus Mark V SOC navy boat? Fully armed!

fresch · Oct 10, 2022

As I say all the time,
The 1st= you are not the king.
The 2nd = bang we told you, you are not the king.
The second amendment as most know, restrict the government (king) from ordering we the people on what arms we can have.
Like on the 1st amendment the government (king) can not become the religion or tell we the people what religion to follow.

spat · Oct 10, 2022

John Stark said:
The phrase used by the Court was "in common use." The phrase used by the Court as part of making the determination of what falls under "in common use" was derived from the Miller decision, which basically gave the standard "dangerous and unusual weapons," and basically took the stance along the lines of "what people would show up with that was commonly used by civilians at the time, and that they would show up with when called up as a militia."

Its NOT about weapons being in "common use" as determined by the number in usage. This is a huge mistake that even the big gun rights groups make. We have to break down the notion of "dangerous and unusual weapons" as a standard to grok this.

My contention has always been that this standard must be something along the lines of "technology that has proven safe and effective."

We know guns are effective (even Fudds would admit that, based on the deer they take with their guns), so lets answer the "dangerous" part of the standard.

Are guns dangerous? Of course they are... if mishandled, which is probably the vast number of injuries and deaths caused by someone pulling the trigger "by accident." However, its also possible that gun could be defective. Maybe less so today with machined parts and factory/industry standards, but it is possible that a batch of weapons could be defective because of a bad CAD or milling set up, a flaw in the design not caught before going into productions, human error, poor production standards or testing, and so on.

I would liken this somewhat to automobiles or other machines; a machine that is not properly designed, crafted, tested, and so on, is "dangerous" and maybe "unusual" (new machines that go to market based on very new and radical designs, materials, etc.).

If the "dangerous" standard meant simply, "it could hurt or kill someone" then you are right to point out that "in common use" would ban almost ALL arms. Guns, just like swords, daggers, pikes, bows, etc., are all Arms that are dangerous in that sense, and all of those and many many more were obviously around for centuries and even millennia and used "safely" by their bearers.

The question of "dangerous and unusual" must then turn in a different direction.

My take is that it means standard technology, or craftsmanship, that has been proven to be safe to employ for its intended purpose.

A sword is useful to defend oneself in a pre-firearms culture, and in fact obviously still is in certain situations, just as a wagon wheel is still "in common use." The implements might change in terms of materials, but there are still people today who employ old fashioned wagon wheels and carts (like the Amish).

I would also note that your statement "Under this argument tazers, railguns, lasers, etc., could effectively be banned." Is not correct, as per the Cetano decision, wherein they essentially upheld the Right to self defense of a woman arrested for employing a taser against her attacker. Tasers and that technology have been upheld by the Supremes as "in common use" even though they may not be anywhere close to the preferred method of self-defense based on the number of them sold and "in use."

EVs are all the rage right now, but is that technology dangerous to the user? Like any vehicle, they can obviously be dangerous if a user is not careful in their driving habits, but that does not make them "dangerous" per se. If the technology is defective and can cause harm when it fails, then it would be "dangerous" in the sense that the Miller decision meant, and which Scalia leaned into somewhat when he wrote Heller.

We have not seen Jetsons style "flying cars" yet, and until we do, it would be prudent to make sure "flying cars" are safe for their intended use before we would call them "common use technology" that is not "dangerous and unusual." Different technology than weaponry obviously, but its the same principle.

Now let's apply that. Are full auto firearms "protected" arms under the way I am describing the standard? Was the technology safe? Was that technology in "common use" in that sense and safely usable (safely as in no defects of craftsmanship that would injure the user and any bystanders nearby when the technology was employed)? The answer to that is a resounding YES. Further, before the unconstitutional NFA, they were not illegal to own or buy, there were no background checks for them, and the only restriction on buying them or owning them was the price tag for most people. Even today, full auto is NOT illegal for the purposes of Keeping and Bearing, it is simply prohibitive for most people because of the NFA hoops to jump through, and because the flow of full autos was bottle necked in '86 when the sale of newly manufactured full autos was prohibited, leaving the market for full autos only in the realm of "pre-ban" and a limited supply of "used" guns, so to speak.

Even in this video, Mark Smith makes a similar errors, relying on numbers of weapons "in common use" and talking about "bearable arms" as a baseline standard. Bearable in what sense? Those a man can carry. However, that COMPLETELY ignores the fact that for millennia, men did Bear (carry) their arms on horseback or wagons/carts drawn by horses that they controlled. A mounted cavalry man may well have a dagger, sword, or hand gun on his hip while riding a horse or in a wagon of carriage of some sort, but we all know that mounted men also would carry their heavier weaponry on their transport, whether rifles or shot guns, spare handguns or swords or daggers, including grenades, pikes lances, and many many other implements of self defense and civilian and military usage.

"Common" use means "technology or craftsmanship" that has been accepted as safe, useful, and effective for daily use, and such that most people either understands how it works, or can readily educate themselves in order to understand its operation and the safe means to employ it.

We see this all throughout the history of mankind, and the entire history of our nation. New technology and craftsmanship has literally exploded onto the market. Not everyone even understands how it works, but a LOT of it is in "common use" because the designers and the makers of it and the engineers and "experts" say it is.

How many people understand tensile strength and what that means in terms of crossing a bridge in their cars and trucks, not understanding even the motors or transmissions that move the vehicles they are employing? And yet bridges and cars and trucks are certainly "in common use" and not "dangerous and unusual" in the least.

Are grenades "dangerous and unusual" in this sense? No. They can be kept on the shelf "loaded and ready to fire" just like a gun on "safe" and they will never harm anyone (except maybe if there is a fire), and we know they can be employed in a safe manner and their design is not "unusual" technology at all.

My understanding of what they meant was really "useful in a military context".

So, if it's issued by a military or police force, then obviously it's covered.

If it's something an irregular force could employ successfully, then that's covered too.

If it's some ridiculous gadget that nobody would take seriously in a military context, then *maybe* you can regulate it.

So, that means things like bumpstocks aren't covered, but IEDs, homemade submachineguns, and cruise missiles made from RC aircraft are.

spat · Oct 10, 2022

fresch said:
As I say all the time,
The 1st= you are not the king.
The 2nd = bang we told you, you are not the king.
The second amendment as most know, restrict the government (king) from ordering we the people on what arms we can have.
Like on the 1st amendment the government (king) can not become the religion or tell we the people what religion to follow.

I think people get the religious context of the 1A all wrong.

The text says congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion.

People think that means you can't tax churches.

It means nothing of the sort.

It means the government has no business even deciding what a church is.

You can't pass a tax *aimed* at churches, but at the same time you can't pick and choose who is a church to get exemptions either.

Offering an official recognition that "you are a church so you're tax exempt" is the very definition of a law regarding the establishment of religion.

John Stark · Oct 10, 2022

spat said:
The only problem with the 2A is that it does not include a penalty for violating it.

What?

The penalty for violating the Second Amendment is built right into it; obviously so.

The failure of the citizenry to defend their own Liberty does not alter the text, nor the intent of it.

John Stark · Oct 10, 2022

Grimscale said:
The problem here is basic understanding of language by an average person.

"Common use" is far too easily defined as "many people already have these and use them". Both the pro-gun and anti-gun groups are basically using it in this fashion. Just the argument for AR15s alone I keep hearing "there are millions in circulation", rather than "they are built using aluminum, which is stronger and more reliable than printed plastic".

Similarly, people hear "dangerous and unusual" and immediately think of weapons that might inflict more damage than some vague "acceptable" level. Or weapons that are not just simple projectile throwers.

Most people would think grenades ARE "dangerous and unusual" in that they more often maim rather than kill, and the average person doesn't own any.

This leads to confusion.

Yet another place where confusion over a word is leading to curtailment of our Rights.

Even on this forum I've read people's opinions that "keep and bear" applies only to those weapons an infantryman would be able to carry himself.
Yet our forefathers were able to "keep and bear" full warships!
Assuming I win the lottery, why can't I purchase and possess a surplus Mark V SOC navy boat? Fully armed!

With all due respect, the "basic understanding of language by an average person" may be influential on public opinion, whether it is error or enlightened. However, as a matter of long established law, it is of little consequence to the plain meaning of the text, the history behind it that backs up that plain meaning, and traditions and long standing "norms" that indicate what is meant by the verbiage with which the text is written. In other words, ignorance does not alter what the text means, and it is no excuse.

Yes it would be preferable if we had an educated electorate, but the text is not to blame for the sad state of affairs we find ourselves in with regards to our Republic and the Liberties we enjoy thereunder. The problem is solved by educating those who are not up on the "lingo."

To be frank, using that as an excuse to not address the points I made does not weaken my thesis in the slightest.

As I said, "common use" and "dangerous and unusual" are vestiges of the few legal precedents we have for the Second Amendment, drawn from the Miller decision of 1939. Perhaps not the best clay to work with to shape and mold a pillar of our Liberty.

For what its worth, it is my view that Miller ought to be overturned by the Supremes for several reasons. Miller does sorta point in the right direction, but it was a very flawed decision.

To start with, its ruling failed utterly with its standard on what weapons are allowed by the 2A. The case was about the NFA and short barrelled shotguns, specifically about a double barrel shotgun that was "not long enough" (i.e., less than 18" in length). The Court completely fumbled this under their general rubric that "weapons protected under the 2A must be something that is useful in a militia or the military." (Note that I wrote that rubric myself for clarity based on the ruling; its not the Courts language).

But hilarity ensues once we get some historical perspective on the ruling. First of all, the US military in WW1 had procured and used 10s of thousands of short barrel shotguns! So the whole predicate upon which they made there ruling turned out to not be true.

Further, as you have pointed out, their terms were not precise, and they really failed to make themselves clear. Its not just phrases like"common use" or "dangerous and unusual" that leave the decision in doubt.

Which brings me to the my next point. Miller ought to be struck for the same reasons that the NFA ("decided" upon by traitor lawmakers that same year) should be struck. In Miller, the challenge to the NFA came from a criminal trying to get out of the charges. The man Jack Miller (one of 2 defendants in the case) was a "known" bank robber and part of a crime ring, and the case was involved in legal shenanigans that, in my opinion, were used to uphold the NFA at the federal level in a very similar manner that was used to get the NFA passed in the first place. That is, the actions of criminals in both the passage of the NFA as "law" (legislative and executve action to make it so) and the upholding of it in the Miller decision (judicial blessing or "seal of approval") were both reached in a crooked and dishonest manner, and clearly so. The NFA was passed ostensibly because of.... crime; that it, criminals were killing people with guns, sometimes with machineguns, and so by gosh and by golly, the FedGov has a solution to that: to make sure it would be cost prohibitive thereafter for non-criminals to own machineguns, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and so on.

All that being said, Miller was not overturned, and its part of the calculus we have to work with (in the judicial and legal sense), because the Supremes in Heller (Scalia specifically) relied in part on Miller.

Dealing with the language barrier on the "common use" and "dangerous and unusual" verbiage from Miller remains a part of the legal and jurisprudential landscape just as the turn of phrase in the Second Amendment is; to whit, the prefatory clause of the Amendment itself: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...."

That prefatory turn of phrase has played hell with our Second Amendment rights since at least 1939; however, in its day, it was not considered as easily misconstrued verbiage, to the point that it ended up in our Constitution. Historical analysis bears out the plain meaning of the text, and fortunately its been made clear by Heller that the Second Amendment does grant the Right to individuals of "self defense" and to own and carry... Arms.

Which leads me to my final point, the continued use of "guns" and "firearms" with regards to the Second Amendment as though those terms were synonymous, and which we all slip into from time to time.

Playing that game IMO does nothing but play into public perceptions of what the Second Amendment is about (i.e., guns), and it needs to stop. The Second Amendment is about Arms needed for the citizens of this nation to defend themselves against criminals, including the criminals that want to take away their Liberty Teeth. Its more than guns.

Fortunately, the Court has upheld the idea that the Second Amendment does cover more than firearms, as the did when they upheld the lawfulness of employing a taser in self defense in Cetano.

John Stark · Oct 10, 2022

spat said:
My understanding of what they meant was really "useful in a military context".

So, if it's issued by a military or police force, then obviously it's covered.

If it's something an irregular force could employ successfully, then that's covered too.

If it's some ridiculous gadget that nobody would take seriously in a military context, then *maybe* you can regulate it.

So, that means things like bumpstocks aren't covered, but IEDs, homemade submachineguns, and cruise missiles made from RC aircraft are.

Miller does IMO attempt to tie what was allowed under the Second Amendment to being useful to use in a military context. I don't believe law enforcement or "police force" was mentioned in the opinion as some kind of standard.

However, that in essence IMO has been overturned by Heller, even though Miller was not officially stated as being overturned by the Supremes.

Now I am not saying that Heller completely did away with the "militia test" (i.e., are the arms civilians use applicable to militia or military service?), as Scalia talked about the common man showing up with the weapons he had on hand if need be. It ought to be noted that, IMO, the Constitution makes it clear that both the States and FedGov have the power to arm men in the case of a call up, and IMO that would imply that if you show up with an implement that is considered subpar for some reason, at that point the government could and probably would force you to use a different implement. That is, your weapon might not meet military need, and thus would be prohibited from use while "called up" and a replacement given. (Article 1 Section 8)

However all of that is predicated on something that I have stated for a long time, that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only make sense when we put it into terms of self-defense. Heller makes is very, very clear that Americans have a Right to self-defense.

It might be the case that the weapon you have is not adequate for efficient and effective military service, and perhaps if you were called up that would come into play when you showed up with whatever impliment(s) you "have on hand." That does not mean that the implement that you DO have is automatically not covered by the Second Amendment.

A sword, a pitch fork, a machete, a bow and arrows, and so on, are all weapons that offer some amount of efficacy to defend oneself, and all were around at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Scalia talks about this in Heller as weapons "on hand." Not all implements are weapons, but even a hammer can kill, and every American has the Right to defend themselves with one if that is what is "at hand," I realize that sounds a little absurd in this technological age, but at the time the 2A was ratified, grabbing an axe or a hammer to go along with your musket (if you had one), was most often a necessity of life, both in plain old self-defense, and in military service.

Perhaps a pitch fork doesn't meet the needs of militia or active duty now, but it still might be what was "at hand" when you use it to kill the man trying to murder your family... or that Fedcoat who is trying to rape your wife.

The rubric used by Scalia when he teases out the implications of Miller make sense, and it is of note that Scalia did not try to overrule Miller.

When you put homemade IEDs, subguns, and cruise missile ahead of something like a commercially sold bump stock, as things "covered" by Miller (and I'm assuming Heller?), you are putting your ass before the cart. A homemade subgun may well be protected if it is not "dangerous" due to flaw or defect in manufacture or design, but lets be real about the other two examples you posted.

A bump stock is practically nothing but an accessory, and it is basically proven technology. You can put one on your rifle and fire it at the range all day long, and it theoretically is not going to harm anyone as long as good shooting practices are followed.

Screwing around with IEDs is another matter. Do a search and see how many jihadis blow themselves up every year screwing around with mixing up homemade explosives. I'm fine with them shuffling off this mortal coil, but if you look you will see that oftentimes they are not just blowing themselves up when the screw up their mixture, but they are killing other people who are not mixed up in their cause.

I have no problem with inventors and tech types experimenting with new weapons, but there must be some common sense as to what is protected and what is not. A gun design that blows up 5 times out of every hundred (or a 500, or a thousand times) when its fired is not something that ought to be protected by the Second Amendment, at least until that design flaw is remedied. Most modern firearms are all probably past that point now that the tech is standardized, but that may not apply to a different technology. Its one thing for things to happen during testing, but if something is sold and marketed to the public as "safe to use," then it ought to be so. Failure on that end can and should result in criminal charges of negligence, causing injury to others, and manslaughter at the least if the boys playing around with new toys did not take proper precautions with their experiments and cause loss of life or limb.

Now this thread will probably proceed at this point with some nonsense about how people ought to be allowed to build and own their own nuclear weapons too, so if it goes that way, knock yourself out.

But there are practical considerations when it comes to Arms, particularly modern arms and the technology behind them. There is no doubt that modern Arms are more potent than most weapons prior to use of gun powder. Making or owning a sword has a very small "oops" factor. Screwing around with chemicals to make an IEDs is something that actually is a very real danger to our Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Bump stocks are a proven technology (its a stock for goodness sake!), just like full auto is, and both should be unquestionably covered by the Second Amendment at least for individual self-defense as something that is "at hand."

fresch · Oct 10, 2022

After learning the lessons of getting people up to speed on military fighting, the second is basically a draft (militia) where training would occur. The well regulated is weapons and ammo; Ben Arnold had to go capture cannons, For the state.

The right of the people to bear arms is just that, for we the people, not the state, no standing army, no federal (central) government, but a part time government more or less. Professional politicians were never a thought as to today's traitors.

The constitution needs to be looked at from the point of view from history at that time. Henry the viii and the rest of serfdom.

John Stark · Oct 10, 2022

livingston said:
John .. I am far from a legal scholar ... It was interesting to read your interpretation . I myself have not known or ran across this as you explained above.
What amazes many people .. The 2nd is just a few words. yet we get so many interpretations of these words.

https://www.socsci.uci.edu/lawforum/content/journal/LFJ_2008_palzes.pdf

The Sophisticated Second Amendment: The Real Meaning Was There All Along
On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

The Circuit split involved two drastically different approaches to the Second Amendment: one arising in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Silveira v. Lockyer), and one from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (United States v. Emerson). In 2002, the Silveira Court found that the Second Amendment protects the collective right of the states’ citizens to retain the modern equivalent of a state militia (to the extent it may exist), and that states should have the power to limit citizen possession of weapons used for any other purpose. The Emerson Court, on the other hand, found that the Amendment protects citizens’ individual rights to own weapons without excessive government regulation.
the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 478 F.3d 370.

Point I am making is we have people that have devoted their life to the study of our constitution. . Certainly more than a vast majority of folks on this forum. . The disagreement is vast among these scholars. ... Worlds apart... Such as the result is ... Confusion among us lay people..... on the finer points. . Even major ones.

I would like to ask you a question if I may. What was the point of posting the link to that document and quoting from it?

Was it to show how the "scholarly world" borks things into confusion with their interpretations? Or to point out someone who is clear on the subgject of the Second Amendment?

spat · Oct 10, 2022

John Stark said:
What?

The penalty for violating the Second Amendment is built right into it; obviously so.

The failure of the citizenry to defend their own Liberty does not alter the text, nor the intent of it.

No, the 2A is violated all the time with impunity.

It's purpose is to maintain the ability for the people to defend themselves from the government. That is not the penalty for violating it. There is no penalty for violating it, which is why we see so much of that.

spat · Oct 10, 2022

John Stark said:
Miller does IMO attempt to tie what was allowed under the Second Amendment to being useful to use in a military context. I don't believe law enforcement or "police force" was mentioned in the opinion as some kind of standard.

However, that in essence IMO has been overturned by Heller, even though Miller was not officially stated as being overturned by the Supremes.

Now I am not saying that Heller completely did away with the "militia test" (i.e., are the arms civilians use applicable to militia or military service?), as Scalia talked about the common man showing up with the weapons he had on hand if need be. It ought to be noted that, IMO, the Constitution makes it clear that both the States and FedGov have the power to arm men in the case of a call up, and IMO that would imply that if you show up with an implement that is considered subpar for some reason, at that point the government could and probably would force you to use a different implement. That is, your weapon might not meet military need, and thus would be prohibited from use while "called up" and a replacement given. (Article 1 Section 8)

However all of that is predicated on something that I have stated for a long time, that the Right to Keep and Bear Arms only make sense when we put it into terms of self-defense. Heller makes is very, very clear that Americans have a Right to self-defense.

It might be the case that the weapon you have is not adequate for efficient and effective military service, and perhaps if you were called up that would come into play when you showed up with whatever impliment(s) you "have on hand." That does not mean that the implement that you DO have is automatically not covered by the Second Amendment.

A sword, a pitch fork, a machete, a bow and arrows, and so on, are all weapons that offer some amount of efficacy to defend oneself, and all were around at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Scalia talks about this in Heller as weapons "on hand." Not all implements are weapons, but even a hammer can kill, and every American has the Right to defend themselves with one if that is what is "at hand," I realize that sounds a little absurd in this technological age, but at the time the 2A was ratified, grabbing an axe or a hammer to go along with your musket (if you had one), was most often a necessity of life, both in plain old self-defense, and in military service.

Perhaps a pitch fork doesn't meet the needs of militia or active duty now, but it still might be what was "at hand" when you use it to kill the man trying to murder your family... or that Fedcoat who is trying to rape your wife.

The rubric used by Scalia when he teases out the implications of Miller make sense, and it is of note that Scalia did not try to overrule Miller.

When you put homemade IEDs, subguns, and cruise missile ahead of something like a commercially sold bump stock, as things "covered" by Miller (and I'm assuming Heller?), you are putting your ass before the cart. A homemade subgun may well be protected if it is not "dangerous" due to flaw or defect in manufacture or design, but lets be real about the other two examples you posted.

A bump stock is practically nothing but an accessory, and it is basically proven technology. You can put one on your rifle and fire it at the range all day long, and it theoretically is not going to harm anyone as long as good shooting practices are followed.

Screwing around with IEDs is another matter. Do a search and see how many jihadis blow themselves up every year screwing around with mixing up homemade explosives. I'm fine with them shuffling off this mortal coil, but if you look you will see that oftentimes they are not just blowing themselves up when the screw up their mixture, but they are killing other people who are not mixed up in their cause.

I have no problem with inventors and tech types experimenting with new weapons, but there must be some common sense as to what is protected and what is not. A gun design that blows up 5 times out of every hundred (or a 500, or a thousand times) when its fired is not something that ought to be protected by the Second Amendment, at least until that design flaw is remedied. Most modern firearms are all probably past that point now that the tech is standardized, but that may not apply to a different technology. Its one thing for things to happen during testing, but if something is sold and marketed to the public as "safe to use," then it ought to be so. Failure on that end can and should result in criminal charges of negligence, causing injury to others, and manslaughter at the least if the boys playing around with new toys did not take proper precautions with their experiments and cause loss of life or limb.

Now this thread will probably proceed at this point with some nonsense about how people ought to be allowed to build and own their own nuclear weapons too, so if it goes that way, knock yourself out.

But there are practical considerations when it comes to Arms, particularly modern arms and the technology behind them. There is no doubt that modern Arms are more potent than most weapons prior to use of gun powder. Making or owning a sword has a very small "oops" factor. Screwing around with chemicals to make an IEDs is something that actually is a very real danger to our Life, Liberty, and Happiness.

Bump stocks are a proven technology (its a stock for goodness sake!), just like full auto is, and both should be unquestionably covered by the Second Amendment at least for individual self-defense as something that is "at hand."

My point is that people fight wars with such improvised weapons.

That *makes* them covered.

Nobody fights a war with a bump stock.

It has no utility for self defense either.

There is no good reason to ban it, but no good reason why anyone might need one either. They are a toy. I do not support any ban on them, but I think a good argument could be made that they are not covered by the 2A. But only because the reasons stated to ban them are ridiculous. If they were actually effective weapons, then they would be protected.

How about a simple test for covered weapons.

If you're a partisan like the French resistance of WWII, and you show up to fight your occupiers with that weapon, are your fellow partisans going to say "yes, that could be useful", or are they going to start laughing.

A drone with some grenades duct taped to it has proven effective in Ukraine.

A bump stock not so much.

Acer-m14 · Oct 11, 2022

1700's cannon and 2022 cannon .. both are the same and i should have both .. no permit needed ..

Lightweight 155mm howitzer cannon

spat · Oct 11, 2022

fresch said:
The constitution needs to be looked at from the point of view from history at that time. Henry the viii and the rest of serfdom.

The historical point of view is that it was written By people who hand just won a war that started because their government attempted to confiscate their privately owned cannons in Concorde MA.

Cannons are not for hunting, or defense against common criminals.

Grimscale · Oct 11, 2022

livingston said:
On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. ......... On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense.

Except, if you look at the writings of the time when the 2nd was created, you will see that BOTH are actually true.

To support a Militia people were required to bring their own arms. Thus "A well regulated militia, being necessary..." is the Collective portion, but the important part is "the Right of the People", an individual context.

Even with standing armies, ultimate defense of the Country inevitably will fall on the civilians, as they are typically the last remaining fighting force if/when the official armies are beaten. We see that even today with the defense of Ukraine, and the Ukraine .gov handing out rifles to the populace.

spat said:
Nobody fights a war with a bump stock.

Why not?
It is a means of converting a semi-auto gun into some semblance of a full auto gun. Full auto guns have their applications in war.
Just because someone HASN'T used one in a war doesn't mean they won't. And, for all we know, the desert dwellers in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., might have used some.

spat said:
It has no utility for self defense either.

It has plenty of use in self defense. In many case volume of fire is more important than accuracy for cases where a large number of perps are coming at you (think BLM) or just to make them keep their heads down while non-combatants are moved from the field (getting your family out of the way).

spat · Oct 11, 2022

Grimscale said:
Except, if you look at the writings of the time when the 2nd was created, you will see that BOTH are actually true.

To support a Militia people were required to bring their own arms. Thus "A well regulated militia, being necessary..." is the Collective portion, but the important part is "the Right of the People", an individual context.

Even with standing armies, ultimate defense of the Country inevitably will fall on the civilians, as they are typically the last remaining fighting force if/when the official armies are beaten. We see that even today with the defense of Ukraine, and the Ukraine .gov handing out rifles to the populace.

Why not?
It is a means of converting a semi-auto gun into some semblance of a full auto gun. Full auto guns have their applications in war.
Just because someone HASN'T used one in a war doesn't mean they won't. And, for all we know, the desert dwellers in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., might have used some.

It has plenty of use in self defense. In many case volume of fire is more important than accuracy for cases where a large number of perps are coming at you (think BLM) or just to make them keep their heads down while non-combatants are moved from the field (getting your family out of the way).

No, nobody serious is going to use a bump stock in a war.

Not when a proper full auto conversion is so easy.

"Hey Achmed, look at this goofy gadget I got to increase our volume of fire, it makes the gun so hard to control you can barely target a general area but you can burn up ammo much faster."

"Or, you could just bend this paperclip up and stick it in there for 1/1000th the cost and no sacrifice in controllability compared to the factory parts".

Bump stocks are ridiculous toys. They're worse than the chainsaw bayonet.

The government doesn't have the legitimate authority to ban them, but it's not because of the 2A IMHO.

Can ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazines Be Banned After Bruen..

20×102mm Vulcan