Machine Guns Are Not Protected By The Second Amendment, Appeals Court Rules [W:315]

[Μολὼν λαβέ]

I think that's my point. Badly worded, but the feds reserved the power to not restrict citizens keeping and bearing.

Yes but apparently states and local municipalities can impose "reasonable firearm regulations." No wonder there's such controversy over the 2A. What's reasonable to those who embrace the 2A certainly isn't to those who detest it.

Luckily, many in congress know their job depends on how they vote on firearms "regulations."

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes but apparently states and local municipalities can impose "reasonable firearm regulations." No wonder there's such controversy over the 2A. What's reasonable to those who embrace the 2A certainly isn't to those who detest it.

Luckily, many in congress know their job depends on how they vote on firearms "regulations."

as I have noted, the term sensible has two meanings

to honest and normal people it means laws that are designed to decrease crime and impact criminals while interfering with the rights of honest citizens as little as possible. That is a sensible law in terms of crime control


in the minds of the Bannerrhoid movement members, gun owners are the enemy and the NRA is a symbol of all they hate and their main opponent. SO to them, Sensible laws are ones that harass gun owners and harm the NRA while pandering to the witless masses who are easily seduced by the false promises that gun control will make them safer

 

[jimbo]

Yes but apparently states and local municipalities can impose "reasonable firearm regulations." No wonder there's such controversy over the 2A. What's reasonable to those who embrace the 2A certainly isn't to those who detest it.

Luckily, many in congress know their job depends on how they vote on firearms "regulations."

True. My question is why? And related, why does the same rules not apply to the first, which states Congress shall make no law thus turning the power back to the states?

 

[Casper]

Actually citizens can buy a "machine gun", it is expensive and a hassle, and those they can actually buy are limited, but the fact of the matter is we can buy them.

 

[Casper]

Give me a big enough truck and I can bear a nuclear tipped ICBM.

Your truck does not have any rights. Not seeing anyone wanting an ICBM.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually citizens can buy a "machine gun", it is expensive and a hassle, and those they can actually buy are limited, but the fact of the matter is we can buy them.

there are states-like the collective of california that bans them. and the Hughes Amendment is a clear violation of the constitution. and it was passed based on fraudulent reasons. It doesn't even meet the smell test

 

[Casper]

there are states-like the collective of california that bans them. and the Hughes Amendment is a clear violation of the constitution. and it was passed based on fraudulent reasons. It doesn't even meet the smell test

Much of the Nation has given up on California and it's particular brand of stupidity, seems most of the citizens there are simply sheep that go along with whatever nonsense their government decides, otherwise the voters would change who is in power. California is not nor has it ever been an example of how to do things properly, but then again it does help voters in other states know what hey are going to get when one of their politicians tries passing the same stupid laws in their state and can reject them. There is always some good to be gained out of watching others do stupid things.

 

[TurtleDude]

Much of the Nation has given up on California and it's particular brand of stupidity, seems most of the citizens there are simply sheep that go along with whatever nonsense their government decides, otherwise the voters would change who is in power. California is not nor has it ever been an example of how to do things properly, but then again it does help voters in other states know what hey are going to get when one of their politicians tries passing the same stupid laws in their state and can reject them. There is always some good to be gained out of watching others do stupid things.

and that is what the founders intended. Not this overbearing federal government idiocy but rather allowing the states to be able to decide what works-and if it didn't-people would go to states that weren't run by morons. The current nanny welfare state could never be applied at a state level because all of us net tax payers would leave states that give way too much to the teat sucklers and a state that caters to teat sucklers would go bankrupt once the golden geese flew away.

The same should be true about gun laws. There should not be federal gun laws but rather state ones. Cess pools like MD and California would be stocked with well armed criminals and bleating sheep. Sane states would be a bad place for the coyotes to prowl because there would be lots of varmint hunters

 

[jet57]

Don't burn your hands rubbing them together in glee.

There's no glee in it man. I've been tellin you guys for some years now what was gonna go down and why and everybody said I was crazy and didn't know what I was talkin about: well - here it is, and it's sad the whole thing is going down be cause of the nuts in the NRA.

I hope you gun faction guys are all happy with yourselves. It could'a gone waaay differently. But it's really gonna get tight now, and then comes Hillary in office.

 

[jet57]

Much of the Nation has given up on California and it's particular brand of stupidity, seems most of the citizens there are simply sheep that go along with whatever nonsense their government decides, otherwise the voters would change who is in power. California is not nor has it ever been an example of how to do things properly, but then again it does help voters in other states know what hey are going to get when one of their politicians tries passing the same stupid laws in their state and can reject them. There is always some good to be gained out of watching others do stupid things.

As California goes - so goes the nation, as this thread clearly shows.

 

[PirateMk1]

Are you willing to accept the limitation of arms that can be "born", i.e., carried around, or does it apply to any arm?

Define born more precisely. The definition of bear means to use as in "bring to bear". I would apply that definition to any arms. The second amendment specifically allows for ownership and all that in implies as well as the use.

 

[PirateMk1]

The Supreme Court disagrees with that claim. Justice Scalia made very clear in Heller that like most rights, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited. He mentioned several limitations that have long been generally recognized, even before 1791. Even then, it was well established that the right did not extend to felons and insane people or to the carrying of concealed weapons, and Scalia emphasized that the Court was not questioning the right of government to ban weapons in certain sensitive buildings like courthouses or schools, or to impose some regulations on the commercial sale of firearms.

None of this is to say that government may restrict the right to keep and bear arms in other ways that have not been traditionally recognized as legitimate. Scalia affirmed that the right protected by the Second Amendment predates the Constitution and exists independent of it. That means that what the Second Amendment protects is the right as it was commonly understood in 1791, by which time most people accepted that several exceptions had been carved out of it.

The First Amendment freedom of speech makes a good comparison. Just as the Second Amendment says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. And yet by 1791, it was well established that that freedom contained certain exceptions. The right to keep and bear arms that the Second Amendment was meant to protect did not extend to felons, any more than the right to free speech that the First Amendment was meant to protect extended to libelers.

In the matter of the second amendment Scalia was an illiterate dunce. I do not acknowledge those exceptions. If there were to be exceptions then they would have been codified in the amendments. They were not. Therefor I surmise that the Justices the ruled on those particular matters before them ruled in error. The government state and federal and local may not enact any laws respecting speech religion press or assembly or the right to keep and bear arms. It is simple and clear.

 

[Crimefree]

In the matter of the second amendment Scalia was an illiterate dunce. I do not acknowledge those exceptions. If there were to be exceptions then they would have been codified in the amendments. They were not. Therefor I surmise that the Justices the ruled on those particular matters before them ruled in error. The government state and federal and local may not enact any laws respecting speech religion press or assembly or the right to keep and bear arms. It is simple and clear.

It is amazing how those postulating such woefully wrong theories about infarctions of the law fold when asked if it was common knowledge and practice why was it not incorporated to protect that accepted infraction. One does not write law with hidden meanings or unstated acceptance of common practice.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Rifles and pistols have other purposes and are not meant to kill large amount so people very quickly. I do not believe someone should be able to buy a modern machine gun but for things like the gun above yous should have to go through very strict background checks and medical examinations as well as have previous experience handling weapons. Not just anyone should be able to buy one.

Full auto is designed simply to be a "repeater". There is nothing in that design that facilitates "killing large amounts of people very quickly". Fact is, any intermediate or large automatic rifle will be prone to rideup, this makes them much less accurate to all but expert shooters, most criminals are far from expert shooters. Now, crew served weapons on stabilizers like tripods, mounts, vehicle mounted weapons will have much more control and could mow down crowds by the hundreds, however, as has been pointed out they are not quite as mobile as a carbine or a m240SAW. Anyone who would try to gun down a crowd with a mounted machine gun during a criminal activity would be a complete moron, it's the textbook definition of a sitting duck.

Some autos have been successful in massacres during the gangland days, but these were ambush style attacks and if you look at the ballistics patterns they were not exactly efficient. More rounds were expended per kill than regular revolver fire would have accomplished. Those kills sent a message, a very messy one, and the public perception got the wrong message as usual(specifically the Valentine's Day massacre).

 

[matchlight]

In the matter of the second amendment Scalia was an illiterate dunce. I do not acknowledge those exceptions. If there were to be exceptions then they would have been codified in the amendments. They were not. Therefor I surmise that the Justices the ruled on those particular matters before them ruled in error. The government state and federal and local may not enact any laws respecting speech religion press or assembly or the right to keep and bear arms. It is simple and clear.

What you acknowledge or don't acknowledge does not change the law. Your assertion that is is "simple and clear" that all state and federal laws regarding the rights you list are unconstitutional is simple-minded drivel that doesn't rate any further discussion. By writing such nonsense, you show everyone here that you are pretending--and not convincingly enough even to fool a bright fourth-grader--to know what you do not.

Your assertion that an amendment cannot have been meant to include any exceptions to the limitations it imposes on government action, unless those exceptions were specified in that amendment, is witless. Explain to us why defamatory speech, just for starters, is not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. In my copy of the Constitution, nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention of defamation. If what you assert is true, all state tort laws against defamation must be unconstitutional. But obviously they're not. As to calling Justice Scalia an illiterate dunce, by doing that you say more about your own literacy and intelligence than you say about his.

 

[Crimefree]

What you acknowledge or don't acknowledge does not change the law. Your assertion that is is "simple and clear" that all state and federal laws regarding the rights you list are unconstitutional is simple-minded drivel that doesn't rate any further discussion. By writing such nonsense, you show everyone here that you are pretending--and not convincingly enough even to fool a bright fourth-grader--to know what you do not.

Laws must be specific and cannot mean what they do not state. There is no argument to that

Your assertion that an amendment cannot have been meant to include any exceptions to the limitations it imposes on government action, unless those exceptions were specified in that amendment, is witless. Explain to us why defamatory speech, just for starters, is not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. In my copy of the Constitution, nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention of defamation. If what you assert is true, all state tort laws against defamation must be unconstitutional. But obviously they're not. As to calling Justice Scalia an illiterate dunce, by doing that you say more about your own literacy and intelligence than you say about his.

It's obvious defamatory speech is not free speech any more than murder, robbery or threatening is the right to arms. There is a huge difference between a right and what you do. There is no right that allows anyone to do what they want.

A law may not exclude a right it gives to all. There is no possible argument against that. BTW felons are in prison, they don't let prisoners have firearms. When released what are they? Sub-human? Not free citizens? Will a law denying convicted and released felons make the slightest difference or is this just another useless gun control law?

We as firearm owners really need to examine our own beliefs and stop this promotion of gun control because we have come to believe gun controls crap

 

[Crimefree]

Full auto is designed simply to be a "repeater". There is nothing in that design that facilitates "killing large amounts of people very quickly". Fact is, any intermediate or large automatic rifle will be prone to rideup, this makes them much less accurate to all but expert shooters, most criminals are far from expert shooters. Now, crew served weapons on stabilizers like tripods, mounts, vehicle mounted weapons will have much more control and could mow down crowds by the hundreds, however, as has been pointed out they are not quite as mobile as a carbine or a m240SAW. Anyone who would try to gun down a crowd with a mounted machine gun during a criminal activity would be a complete moron, it's the textbook definition of a sitting duck.

Some autos have been successful in massacres during the gangland days, but these were ambush style attacks and if you look at the ballistics patterns they were not exactly efficient. More rounds were expended per kill than regular revolver fire would have accomplished. Those kills sent a message, a very messy one, and the public perception got the wrong message as usual(specifically the Valentine's Day massacre).

Which is why many new military rifle have a 3 round limit. And effective combat units teach soldiers that aimed fire is more desirable and effective and not to use that full auto function. If so short bursts are far better than spray and pray of Hollywood.

 

[PirateMk1]

What you acknowledge or don't acknowledge does not change the law. Your assertion that is is "simple and clear" that all state and federal laws regarding the rights you list are unconstitutional is simple-minded drivel that doesn't rate any further discussion. By writing such nonsense, you show everyone here that you are pretending--and not convincingly enough even to fool a bright fourth-grader--to know what you do not.

Your assertion that an amendment cannot have been meant to include any exceptions to the limitations it imposes on government action, unless those exceptions were specified in that amendment, is witless. Explain to us why defamatory speech, just for starters, is not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. In my copy of the Constitution, nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention of defamation. If what you assert is true, all state tort laws against defamation must be unconstitutional. But obviously they're not. As to calling Justice Scalia an illiterate dunce, by doing that you say more about your own literacy and intelligence than you say about his.

State laws regarding the first are unlawful according to the constitution, same with any laws by any government entity regarding religion the press and assembly. There are no exceptions mentioned. None. One must then conclude the rights is absolute. Which is a stance I agree with. Same with the second amendment there are no exception. To determine this All one has to do is read the relevant law. Obviously reading comprehension is not a judges strong suit otherwise they would have made the correct decisions. They have to make assertions that are not within the constitution, by twisting logic and the meaning of the words of the constitution well beyond their original definitions.

As far as Scalia goes, he was an illiterate dunce in the Heller case and he proved it for all the world to see with his ruling. That he was the best of a bad lot means nothing. I do not consider the constitution some fungible thing, who's meaning and definition be bent and twisted at will. The constitution is supposed to be the bedrock foundation upon which all the rest of the countries laws are founded.

As for torts, particularly private torts. They can be brought for any reason by private individuals.

 

[Dittohead not!]

They have to now that the boundaries between federal and state power were screwed up

Agreed. Now, doesn't someone have to regulate arms? Seems to me the real controversy isn't over whether arms need to be regulated (infringed) but over just what regulations are appropriate. We can argue over whether the average citizen really needs a machine gun, for example, or an RPG, or anything else, but not over whether arms can be regulated at all.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Define born more precisely. The definition of bear means to use as in "bring to bear". I would apply that definition to any arms. The second amendment specifically allows for ownership and all that in implies as well as the use.

So, I can keep and bear any arm I can afford to buy, no restrictions at all? Can I have a tank in my driveway, you know, to scare off burglars - no, not an antique, but a real tank that actually shoots artillery shells? How about a surface to air missile?

 

[TurtleDude]

Agreed. Now, doesn't someone have to regulate arms? Seems to me the real controversy isn't over whether arms need to be regulated (infringed) but over just what regulations are appropriate. We can argue over whether the average citizen really needs a machine gun, for example, or an RPG, or anything else, but not over whether arms can be regulated at all.

I have consistently said-for 10+ years on this board and for 40+ years in RL that state regulation-to some extent is proper but we have gone way past that point

 

[Dittohead not!]

Give me a big enough truck and I can bear a nuclear tipped ICBM.

Exactly. And, if the Second Amendment is literal and absolute, you have every right to have that nuke, if you can get one.

 

[ttwtt78640]

What you acknowledge or don't acknowledge does not change the law. Your assertion that is is "simple and clear" that all state and federal laws regarding the rights you list are unconstitutional is simple-minded drivel that doesn't rate any further discussion. By writing such nonsense, you show everyone here that you are pretending--and not convincingly enough even to fool a bright fourth-grader--to know what you do not.

Your assertion that an amendment cannot have been meant to include any exceptions to the limitations it imposes on government action, unless those exceptions were specified in that amendment, is witless. Explain to us why defamatory speech, just for starters, is not protected by the First Amendment right to free speech. In my copy of the Constitution, nowhere in the First Amendment is there any mention of defamation. If what you assert is true, all state tort laws against defamation must be unconstitutional. But obviously they're not. As to calling Justice Scalia an illiterate dunce, by doing that you say more about your own literacy and intelligence than you say about his.

Equally stupid are the assertions that the right to keep and bear arms naturally leads to those that would criminally point and shoot. The freedom causes crime crowd must be made aware of the purpose of the 2A - to restrict the government (ruling class?) from its natural tendency to reduce the power (freedom?) of those under their control.

 

[PirateMk1]

So, I can keep and bear any arm I can afford to buy, no restrictions at all? Can I have a tank in my driveway, you know, to scare off burglars - no, not an antique, but a real tank that actually shoots artillery shells? How about a surface to air missile?

Technically whatever you please. You can own a 100ton 5 story tall mech if you want and can afford. And it complies with your HOA, should you belong to one.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I have consistently said-for 10+ years on this board and for 40+ years in RL that state regulation-to some extent is proper but we have gone way past that point

Agreed.

Now, just where is that extent? Who decides? You? Me? How about Pirate Mk1, the absolutist?

As I said, we can argue over what arms are legal and under what circumstances, but not over whether or not anyone has the right to "infringe" on the right to keep and bear arms.