Your Second Amendment Rights

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

From the majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

In common use by who though?

What is the yardstick the defines common use - is it based on what soldiers use? Is it based on what criminals use? The police?

What exactly defines what weapons are in "common use"?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

From the majority opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

In common use by who though?

What is the yardstick the defines common use - is it based on what soldiers use? Is it based on what criminals use? The police?

What exactly defines what weapons are in "common use"?

"Common use" means those weapons generally available to the public, in type, fuction, and use. For instance, when the National Guard is used for riot control, or security operations within the US borders, their issued weapons must have a device installed which locks the selector switch in the "semi-auto" position. Patrol officers do not carry sub-machine guns and flame throwers. Does that help?

Edited April 9, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it adds to the confusion tbh. Clearly in the case of the National Guard there is a reason why a selector switch must be present on their firearms and why the specific context of riot control puts things like explosives, rocket launchers and flamethrowers out of bounds.

But if its that restrictive why are we fixated on the features of weapons, and not say - specific makes and models? Would the national guard really have a use for an Uzi 9mm or a Tek 9? Does the police? If not - why are those weapons available to the public when by this definition of "common use" they aren't...

By the same rationale - can the common use argument be applied in regard to weapons used by the police? The average beat cop uses a Glock 9mm or something similar right? And patrol cars have a pump shotgun...

Correct me if I'm wrong but they generally do not use submachine guns, stun grenades or riot guns (those - with the exception of the riot guns are used by specialised units within the police like SWAT - which would be common use for "them" but not for the police in general) so again this definition of common use is at best nebulous, because it doesn't seem to be based on a specific context (like riot control) or a single military/para military agency.

Indeed - if National Guard Riot Control amounts to our yardstick for defining common use - then we should surely be allowed to purchase tear gas grenades and riot guns. Perhaps we can... I'm not clued up on what's allowed and what isn't - so perhaps I can find those things at my local guns and ammo store. I'm inclined to doubt it however.

This is admittedly pedantic, and I'm not making this case because I personally want to own hand grenades or rocket launchers etc. What I am wondering is why the restrictions we have under law which ban certain types of weapons do not extend to subtypes of firearms - for the purposes of these debates.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Private Pike

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I think it adds to the confusion tbh. Clearly in the case of the National Guard there is a reason why a selector switch must be present on their firearms and why the specific context of riot control puts things like explosives, rocket launchers and flamethrowers out of bounds.

But if its that restrictive why are we fixated on the features of weapons, and not say - specific makes and models? Would the national guard really have a use for an Uzi 9mm or a Tek 9? Does the police? If not - why are those weapons available to the public when by this definition of "common use" they aren't...

By the same rationale - can the common use argument be applied in regard to weapons used by the police? The average beat cop uses a Glock 9mm or something similar right? And patrol cars have a pump shotgun...

Correct me if I'm wrong but they generally do not use submachine guns, stun grenades or riot guns (those - with the exception of the riot guns are used by specialised units within the police like SWAT - which would be common use for "them" but not for the police in general) so again this definition of common use is at best nebulous, because it doesn't seem to be based on a specific context (like riot control) or a single military/para military agency.

Indeed - if National Guard Riot Control amounts to our yardstick for defining common use - then we should surely be allowed to purchase tear gas grenades and riot guns. Perhaps we can... I'm not clued up on what's allowed and what isn't - so perhaps I can find those things at my local guns and ammo store. I'm inclined to doubt it however.

This is admittedly pedantic, and I'm not making this case because I personally want to own hand grenades or rocket launchers etc. What I am wondering is why the restrictions we have under law which ban certain types of weapons do not extend to subtypes of firearms - for the purposes of these debates.

A riot gun is just another name for a shot gun with a minimum legal length barrel. "Tear gas" can be bought over the counter in the form of "Pepper Spray". I forget which is which, "CS" or "CN", but one type is restricted to riot control, and the other is restricted to military operations. Funny how the chemical that can be used against civilians is prohibited by Geneva Convention from use on the battlefield, and vice-versa.

Edited April 9, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I think it adds to the confusion tbh. Clearly in the case of the National Guard there is a reason why a selector switch must be present on their firearms and why the specific context of riot control puts things like explosives, rocket launchers and flamethrowers out of bounds.

But if its that restrictive why are we fixated on the features of weapons, and not say - specific makes and models? Would the national guard really have a use for an Uzi 9mm or a Tek 9? Does the police? If not - why are those weapons available to the public when by this definition of "common use" they aren't...

By the same rationale - can the common use argument be applied in regard to weapons used by the police? The average beat cop uses a Glock 9mm or something similar right? And patrol cars have a pump shotgun...

Correct me if I'm wrong but they generally do not use submachine guns, stun grenades or riot guns (those - with the exception of the riot guns are used by specialised units within the police like SWAT - which would be common use for "them" but not for the police in general) so again this definition of common use is at best nebulous, because it doesn't seem to be based on a specific context (like riot control) or a single military/para military agency.

Indeed - if National Guard Riot Control amounts to our yardstick for defining common use - then we should surely be allowed to purchase tear gas grenades and riot guns. Perhaps we can... I'm not clued up on what's allowed and what isn't - so perhaps I can find those things at my local guns and ammo store. I'm inclined to doubt it however.

This is admittedly pedantic, and I'm not making this case because I personally want to own hand grenades or rocket launchers etc. What I am wondering is why the restrictions we have under law which ban certain types of weapons do not extend to subtypes of firearms - for the purposes of these debates.

A riot gun is just another name for a shot gun with a minimum legal length barrel. "Tear gas" can be bought over the counter in the form of "Pepper Spray". I forget which is which, "CS" or "CN", but one type is restricted to riot control, and the other is restricted to military operations. Funny how the chemical that can be used against civilians is prohibited by Geneva Convention from use on the battlefield, and vice-versa.

Well you can get pepper spray (though I think its actually illegal in some states - pretty sure I remember it being prohibited in CA when we were living there, though you could buy it from street vendors on Venice Beach), but you can't get anything that produces a gas.

Tasers are also prohibited depending where you live.

I'm just wondering why it is that some weapons (which could be interpreted as being covered by the second amendment) are banned by State Law, international treaty - and at its simplest, common sense, but that these same arguments can't be used in relation to firearms.

I get that the arguments defining "assault rifles" etc are confused, but so is this idea of "common use" and why some weapons are assumed to be automatically off the table when it comes to discussions of 2nd amendment rights.

Obviously its because the folks who own guns (or who buy into the NRA lobby group arguments), see restrictions on any type of firearm as prequel to a total ban on all of them.

[justashooter 430]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

the british troops marching on lexington and concorde were going there to collect artillery pieces, more so than muskets. capische? scalia got that one wrong in heller.

[Kevin and 10]

LINK

BELLEVUE, WA – Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on April 7 acknowledged that gun registration is on her agenda, days after Attorney General Eric Holder told reporters in Mexico that the Second Amendment would not “stand in the way” of administration plans to crack down on alleged gun trafficking to Mexico.

“These are alarming remarks from Speaker Pelosi and Attorney General Holder,” said Second Amendment Foundation founder Alan Gottlieb. “It appears that the Obama administration and Capitol Hill anti-gunners have dropped all pretences about their plans for gun owners’ rights, and it looks like the gloves are coming off.”

Pelosi’s revelation came during an interview on ABC’s Good Morning, America. While insisting that Congress “never denied” the gun rights of American Citizens, Pelosi told Roberts, “We want them registered. We don’t want them crossing state lines…” Gottlieb noted that citizens’ rights do not stop at state lines.

“But that doesn’t really matter,” he observed. “History has shown that around the world, registration has always led to confiscation.”

In Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, Holder was asked if the administration might encounter constitutional issues as it tries to crack down on alleged gun trafficking. His response: “I don’t think our Second Amendment will stand in the way of efforts we have begun and will expand upon.”

“These comments belie administration promises and Democrat rhetoric that party leaders respect the rights of law-abiding Americans to own the firearm of their choice,” Gottlieb said. “They imposed registration of semi-autos in Pelosi’s California and it led to a ban, but it certainly didn’t disarm criminals, like the convicted felon who killed four Oakland police officers last month. We know from Holder that the Obama administration wants to renew the nationwide ban on such firearms, but that won’t prevent crime, either.

“The administration and Congressional anti-gunners have declared war on gun rights,” Gottlieb said. “The press seems deliberately blind to the statements from Pelosi and Holder, who blame our gun rights for their incompetence in dealing with crime. More than 90 million gun owners haven’t hurt anybody, and they are tired of being treated like criminals.”

[one...two...tree 2,762]

There's a school of thought that says if the Second Amendment is an individual right, 'arms' most properly refers to the kind of weapon proper to an individual soldier. (That is, the sort of thing that could be 'borne' by an individual.) Thus, guns, but not tanks, artillery, or bombs.

If we exclude weapons that aren't used by soldiers (as opposed to thing that strictly are not practical for a single person to "bear" - suitcase nukes, or bomb vests) by that definition there would still be latitute for an individual to carry hand grenades or a shoulder mounted missile launcher.

Obviously if we look at the 2nd amendment in this way there is an implied argument that some weapons are more inherently dangerous than others, which is certainly true; but by the same token its reasonable to wonder why the same arguments are consistently denied with regard to firearms - that some guns are more dangerous than others.

Excellent point.

you ignored my posts in your other thread ... and continue to promote exaggerated notions.

Who ... besides you and PP has wanted to have nukes? Who mentions shoulder mounted missile launchers ... hand grenades ... tanks ... bombs ... artillery ... besides you two?

one gun is not more inherently dangerous than another. It is an object ... that needs a person to make it function. What you should be asking is ... what makes one person more inherently dangerous than another. Since you have all these ideas of people possessing all these different weapons ... maybe you are the one more inherently dangerous than others ... hence your obsession with these objects.

In terms of lethality - there certainly is a big difference among the different firearms and you know that. It's not illogical to come from the perspective of what kinds of firearms could potentially cause an emergency situation if used in public where regular duty police officers wouldn't be able to adequately respond to. That's the gist of my argument when it comes to which firearms should be restricted.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

Pretty smart for a random number generator!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

If you shoot someone from 10 feet away sure - but there's probably a reason why deer hunters use rifles and don't try to bag a deer from several hundred yards away with a 9mm handgun.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

10 bullets that can be fired within milliseconds of each other, long range, with the capability to pass through multiple victims is inarguably much more lethal than 1 bullet fired from a shorter range weapon.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

10 bullets that can be fired within milliseconds of each other, long range, with the capability to pass through multiple victims is inarguably much more lethal than 1 bullet fired from a shorter range weapon.

I am definitely going to have to take you shooting next time I go to SoCal, just so you can judge for yourself what can and cannot be done with a firearm.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

10 bullets that can be fired within milliseconds of each other, long range, with the capability to pass through multiple victims is inarguably much more lethal than 1 bullet fired from a shorter range weapon.

I am definitely going to have to take you shooting next time I go to SoCal, just so you can judge for yourself what can and cannot be done with a firearm.

Bill, I've fired off plenty of guns in my lifetime, including two fully auto. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to make the argument that all guns are on equal ground in terms of firepower. Tell that to street cops.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

10 bullets won't kill you 10 times as bad as 1 bullet will. Dead is still dead. At some point, it's just masturbation.

10 bullets that can be fired within milliseconds of each other, long range, with the capability to pass through multiple victims is inarguably much more lethal than 1 bullet fired from a shorter range weapon.

I am definitely going to have to take you shooting next time I go to SoCal, just so you can judge for yourself what can and cannot be done with a firearm.

Bill, I've fired off plenty of guns in my lifetime, including two fully auto. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to make the argument that all guns are on equal ground in terms of firepower. Tell that to street cops.

Does that mean you don't want to go shooting?