Switch Theme:

9th Circuit Court: Concealed Firearm Not Protected By 2nd Amendment  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in us
Quick-fingered Warlord Moderatus





Another Point of view, it seems, with some evidence to back it up

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

3000
4000 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence



He must have missed the part where Federalist 29 states:

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped


The people at large WERE the militia.

Lots of stuff to dispute the crap in your link: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

As Hamilton says in Federalist 28:

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.



More from the link:

The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))


Once they wrote 'The right of the people' they assumed folks were smart enough to know that meant The People. Otherwise they would have used the term Militia instead on People. They didn't. For a reason.

As the link points out:
three jurists, who were contemporaries of the Founders, and wrote constitutional commentaries, read the Second Amendment as protecting a private, individual right to keep arms. There is no contrary evidence from that period


A lot more than your link's cherry picking of Federalist 29...


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Fate-Controlling Farseer





Fort Campbell

he organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.


http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(tibpliewgkd4vnxfvzwimvdm))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-32-509

ยง 127A-1. Composition of militia.
The militia of the State shall consist of all able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United
States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become
citizens of the United States, subject to the qualifications prescribed in this Chapter, who shall be
drafted into the militia or shall voluntarily accept commission, appointment, or assignment to
duty therein. (1917, c. 200, s. 1; C.S., s. 6791; 1949, c. 1130, s. 1; 1957, c. 1043, s. 1; 1963, c.
1016, s. 2; 1967, c. 563, s. 1; 1975, c. 604, s. 2; 2011-195, s. 1(a).)


http://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_127A.pdf

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens...


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=mvc&group=00001-01000&file=120-130


Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?

Full Frontal Nerdity 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 djones520 wrote:

Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?



If the definition of militia is "basically everyone".... then why isn't it well regulated anymore?
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Seaward wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
Obviously from the US point of view the key problem with this is the idea that the police (i.e. government) check the licensing conditions.


They key problem, actually, is long before that; it's the complete disregard for the right to self-defense.


The 2nd amendment doesn't mention self-defence.

The basis of the court judgement in this case is that there isn't a fundamental right in English law for carrying concealed weapons, and that was carried into US law.

Thus, only people with a special need to carry a concealed weapon should be allowed to do so. For example in the UK, police and security officers in Northern Ireland can get concealed pistol licences, because they are at special threat from the IRA, while pistols are generally forbidden to the general public in the UK, who aren't.


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Kilkrazy wrote:
The 2nd amendment doesn't mention self-defence.

Yet the Supreme Court has said it's a right inherent in the Second Amendment all the same.

The basis of the court judgement in this case is that there isn't a fundamental right in English law for carrying concealed weapons, and that was carried into US law.


And when a different, less 'progressive' circuit court says otherwise, the Supreme Court will settle the argument.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Then let's wait for that to happen. At the moment the decision of the court stands.

The current ruling of the Supreme Court is that the 2nd amendment grants the right to have a weapon in the home for defence. (This does not necessarily extend to carrying a weapon in public places.) Also, that individual states are not subject to the restrictions of the 2nd amendment.

The various relevant cases are listed in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/18 07:04:55


I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Kilkrazy wrote:
Then let's wait for that to happen. At the moment the decision of the court stands.

The current ruling of the Supreme Court is that the 2nd amendment grants the right to have a weapon in the home for defence. (This does not necessarily extend to carrying a weapon in public places.) Also, that individual states are not subject to the restrictions of the 2nd amendment.

The various relevant cases are listed in the Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_case_law_in_the_United_States


You probably ought to check out this one.
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

I did. Perhaps your interpretation of the decisions differs from mine. The tenor of your remark would seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot prevent people from having concealed gun licenses, which is the topic of the case.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Kilkrazy wrote:
I did. Perhaps your interpretation of the decisions differs from mine.

That wouldn't shock me at all.

The tenor of your remark would seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot prevent people from having concealed gun licenses, which is the topic of the case.

Well, no. This was the 7th Circuit (one of the other, less crazy circuit courts I referenced earlier), telling Illinois it couldn't outright ban concealed carry, because "[t]he distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment...implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period."

To quote someone from earlier in this thread, "At the moment the decision of the court stands."

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/18 12:03:55


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 djones520 wrote:

Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?



If the definition of militia is "basically everyone".... then why isn't it well regulated anymore?


Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between how you understand the term 'well regulated' and how the folks in the late 1700s understood the term.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




North Carolina

Seaward wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
I did. Perhaps your interpretation of the decisions differs from mine.

That wouldn't shock me at all.

The tenor of your remark would seem to suggest that you believe the Supreme Court has ruled that the states cannot prevent people from having concealed gun licenses, which is the topic of the case.

Well, no. This was the 7th Circuit (one of the other, less crazy circuit courts I referenced earlier), telling Illinois it couldn't outright ban concealed carry, because "[t]he distinct use of the words "keep" and "bear" in the text of the Second Amendment...implied the right to carry outside one's home, as in historical context, the meaning of the word did not limit it to the home and it would be awkward to attempt to assign that connotation to documents of the time period."

To quote someone from earlier in this thread, "At the moment the decision of the court stands."


The 7th circuit is correct in ruling that the 2A gives citizens the right to bear arms and the 9th circuit is correct in that the 2A doesn't explicitly guarantee a constitutional right to concealed carry. The issue that the 9th circuits narrow ruling doesn't address is that CA has outlawed open carry of any kind so if CA county sherrifs refuse to issue concealed carry permits then CA residents are being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. CA has to allow citizens who can lawfully own firearms a manner in which they can bear those arms as guaranteed by the constitution. That right can't be denied to CA citizens through an arbitrary process.

Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur
 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

They where also against a standing army. But once they took over the country they created a millitary to keep control.

So if they changed their opnion when things changed why would the law to bear arms not change?

Things have changed quite a bit and e goverment coming to get you is no longer a real thing.

99% of the people are poor and if the 1% does anythig. To dsirupt that the army is also the 99%. The need for millitary weapons is no longer a thing civilians need to worry about unless they wish to millitarize against civilans.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/18 13:28:50


I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




Prestor Jon wrote:
The 7th circuit is correct in ruling that the 2A gives citizens the right to bear arms and the 9th circuit is correct in that the 2A doesn't explicitly guarantee a constitutional right to concealed carry. The issue that the 9th circuits narrow ruling doesn't address is that CA has outlawed open carry of any kind so if CA county sherrifs refuse to issue concealed carry permits then CA residents are being denied their constitutional right to bear arms. CA has to allow citizens who can lawfully own firearms a manner in which they can bear those arms as guaranteed by the constitution. That right can't be denied to CA citizens through an arbitrary process.

It's important to remember that the 7th Circuit case was brought about specifically because Illinois was the only state in the nation without some form of concealed carry law - it wasn't an open carry case, it was a concealed carry case. 7th Circuit said they had to come up with one or they'd be, by default, a state where people could carry concealed without a permit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.

They where also against a standing army. But once they took over the country they created a millitary to keep control.

So if they changed their opnion when things changed why would the law to bear arms not change?

Things have changed quite a bit and e goverment coming to get you is no longer a real thing.

99% of the people are poor and if the 1% does anythig. To dsirupt that the army is also the 99%. The need for millitary weapons is no longer a thing civilians need to worry about unless they wish to millitarize against civilans.

If that's the case, the Constitution contains a system for removing or altering the Second Amendment.

It would never occur while anyone currently alive is still alive, because American public opinion is strongly in favor of keeping the Second Amendment around.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/18 13:33:39


 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.



No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.

Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.



No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.
Yes but should t all laws be revisited based on the evolving cultures? Such as the majourity of us live within 8 feet of another person and millions of people are within eye sight in majour cities. Also now that weapons can kill dozens if not more people in seconds should the law be revisted such as the long rifle regestry?

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

If the goverment the current fathers of your country say that the majourity have voted and now they ar banning all millitary weapons from civilians will you agree? These are your current leaders and voted in by the majourity. So going against them would be spiting on the legacy of the founding fathers.



But I also have no dog in this fight so I am not bias either way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/18 13:54:08


I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me. 
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





CL VI Store in at the Cyber Center of Excellence

OgreChubbs wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.



No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.
Yes but should t all laws be revisited based on the evolving cultures? Such as the majourity of us live within 8 feet of another person and millions of people are within eye sight in majour cities. Also now that weapons can kill dozens if not more people in seconds should the law be revisted such as the long rifle regestry?

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

If the goverment the current fathers of your country say that the majourity have voted and now they ar banning all millitary weapons from civilians will you agree? These are your current leaders and voted in by the majourity. So going against them would be spiting on the legacy of the founding fathers.



But I also have no dog in this fight so I am not bias either way.


Well, first off, the majority of mass killings are done with hand guns. Not rifles let alone 'military weapons'. So that kind of destroys your point. Our current leaders have a legal mechanism, described a few times in this very thread, to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment or even outright repeal it. Let them. The people and the States (who have to ratify the change) telling them to feth Off would be right in line with what our founding Fathers intended. Which is why the legal process is not an easy one.

And for what it is worth, 'Military Weapons' have been effectively banned for decades.


The 'right to bear arms' very clearly meant military weapons to include warships and cannon. So your ignorance of what the Founding Fathers intended and your clear distaste for civilian ownership of modern NON-military firearms seems to be coloring your thoughts.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/18 14:45:31


Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
 CptJake wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:
I have a question about this.

Your founding fathers said they gave rights to bear arms.



No, the Founding Fathers do not say they GAVE the right to bear arms. They say the Gov't cannot take that right away. Subtle difference, but still a difference.
Yes but should t all laws be revisited based on the evolving cultures? Such as the majourity of us live within 8 feet of another person and millions of people are within eye sight in majour cities. Also now that weapons can kill dozens if not more people in seconds should the law be revisted such as the long rifle regestry?

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.

If the goverment the current fathers of your country say that the majourity have voted and now they ar banning all millitary weapons from civilians will you agree? These are your current leaders and voted in by the majourity. So going against them would be spiting on the legacy of the founding fathers.



But I also have no dog in this fight so I am not bias either way.


Well, first off, the majority of mass killings are done with hand guns. Not rifles let alone 'military weapons'. So that kind of destroys your point. Our current leaders have a legal mechanism, described a few times in this very thread, to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment or even outright repeal it. Let them. The people and the States (who have to ratify the change) telling them to feth Off would be right in line with what our founding Fathers intended. Which is why the legal process is not an easy one.

And for what it is worth, 'Military Weapons' have been effectively banned for decades.


The 'right to bear arms' very clearly meant military weapons to include warships and cannon. So your ignorance of what the Founding Fathers intended and your clear distaste for civilian ownership of modern NON-military firearms seems to be coloring your thoughts.
Not ignorance it is apathy at best. Also your ignorance for long rife regestry reffers to Canada.

But I will end it here because when someone starts a conversation and someone...... Expresses themselves in the way I believe your post was meant it is best to let them speak to themselves good day.

I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

OgreChubbs wrote:

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.
"Military Grade" is a buzzword, it doesn't really mean anything. Is there some sort of arbitrary rate of fire or caliber that makes it so? Is it some sort of specification? Does the simple use of a weapon by a military make it "military grade"?

Most bolt action hunting rifles out there are built on a Mauser action, the same Mauser action developed specifically for the Imperial Germany Army to kill other human beings, that served through two world wars and many other conflicts, in the armies of dozens of nations, and is the most widely produced and used military weapon behind the Kalashnikov and that likely has probably killed more human beings than any other infantry small arm except possibly the Kalashnikov. Does that make Grandpappy's bolt action hunting rifle a "military grade" weapon?

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 CptJake wrote:
 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
 djones520 wrote:

Just a sampling of a handful of the states, and what the legal definition of the "militia" is. Basically everyone. So can we stop that stupid line of argument?



If the definition of militia is "basically everyone".... then why isn't it well regulated anymore?


Perhaps the answer lies in the difference between how you understand the term 'well regulated' and how the folks in the late 1700s understood the term.


Again, Federalist No. 29 gives an answer for that, a "well-regulated militia"... as we've established is "all able-bodied males" (in that time, today it's functionally everyone), but the regulated comes in the form that each state's militia should be drilled and regulated such that it can perform ALL of the duties expected of garrison, field, and battlefield army or navy.


   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

If a specification is needed for "military grade" it can be developed. This obsession with denying definitions of terms is a peculiarity of the pro-gun movement.

The clear difference between a bolt action rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity of 6 or 8 rounds, and a semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) with a 30-round quick swap magazine, is that the effective rate of fire of the AR-15 unsurprisingly is a lot higher.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a specification is needed for "military grade" it can be developed. This obsession with denying definitions of terms is a peculiarity of the pro-gun movement.
It's because labels get applied to a humongous variety of things with very little consistency and thus very threatening sounding names get applied wherever it's convenient to emphasize a point without having any basis outside of pro-guncontrol arguments.


The clear difference between a bolt action rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity of 6 or 8 rounds, and a semi-automatic rifle (AR-15) with a 30-round quick swap magazine, is that the effective rate of fire of the AR-15 unsurprisingly is a lot higher.
I'm not saying that there's no difference between a bolt action rifle a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine. My point was that simply throwing around terms like "military grade weapons", largely in an attempt to portray something as being entirely unsuited to civilian use, is vague to the point of being meaningless beyond appealing to an emotional reaction. A single-shot bolt action rifle can be as "military grade" as a heavy machine gun or rocket launcher, while at the same time civilian weapons often can enjoy much greater performance over military equivalents as civilians can be more willing to devote the resources to a single platform to get more out of it. For example, a military M4 or M16, aside from having a giggle-switch, isn't going to match the performance (in terms of accuracy or effective engagement range) of a well built high end civilian AR15 because the military isn't willing to spend what it would cost to get that performance. Likewise, many weapons used by the military are modified civilian weapons, such as the Remington 700, used by the US army as the M24 Sniper Weapons System (which sounds *way* scarier than "Remington 700" despite being the exact same gun).

Terms matter, they shape arguments and perceptions, and vague or incorrect terms do make a difference, especially in firearms law. An AR15 with a normal grip is an "Assault Weapon" in law in CA or NY for example, but with a modified and angled grip, suddenly it's not an "Assault Weapon". Most people wouldn't bat an eye at a Ruger Mini-14 "Ranch Rifle" (which can be purchased even in CA or NY without hassle) but might flip out at the mentioning of a Ruger AR556 as an "AR15" variant (which *is* an "Assault Weapon" in places like CA and NY), despite firing the same round with largely the same rate of fire, accuracy, range, etc. A rifle with a 14.5" barrel with a 1.5" pinned flash hider is a normal rifle, but that same rifle with an unpinned flash hider is suddenly a highly controlled "Short Barreled Rifle" (mentioned by the current Administration as amongst "the most dangerous weapons"), or, even more silly, a CZ Scorpion Evo 3 Pistol, with no stock, is just a pistol, but put a stock on it and suddenly it's a controlled "Short Barreled Rifle" and also subject to 922r compliance on foreign parts counts. One of these is an unregulated "Pistol" with an arm-brace, the other is a Short Barreled Rifle with a stock and subject to NFA compliance. The terms matter.

As we've seen with AR15's, things can get weird. In the US, legally a firearm is the serial numbered receiver. That means for an AR-15 the part that is legally a "firearm" is this

Well, from that alone, what caliber is that weapon? Is it a rifle? A pistol? Is it centerfire or rimfire? Is it semi-automatic or bolt action? (yes bolt action AR's exist, particularly in places like the UK, CA, and NY). Is it an "Assault Weapon"? Legally it's not even an AR15, it's a New Frontier Armory G-15, whereas AR15 is a Colt Firearms trademarked product name, which is why despite banning AR15's by name, you can still get AR15's in places like CA if it's not a "Colt AR15".

In the highly politicized and legally controlled world of firearms, terms really do matter.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

All the above being true, classifications can be made.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot




On moon miranda.

Absolutely classifications can be made, I don't disagree there. However, I don't think terms like "military grade" (or other things like "assault-style") have much meaning outside of just trying to make things sound scary.

IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.

New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.  
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Vaktathi wrote:
OgreChubbs wrote:

I am just unsure if right to bear arms means the right to millitary grade equipment ment for only killing other humans. As shown by the countless mass shootings, how long until the majourity change their minds to be against millitary weapons.
"Military Grade" is a buzzword, it doesn't really mean anything. Is there some sort of arbitrary rate of fire or caliber that makes it so? Is it some sort of specification? Does the simple use of a weapon by a military make it "military grade"?

Most bolt action hunting rifles out there are built on a Mauser action, the same Mauser action developed specifically for the Imperial Germany Army to kill other human beings, that served through two world wars and many other conflicts, in the armies of dozens of nations, and is the most widely produced and used military weapon behind the Kalashnikov and that likely has probably killed more human beings than any other infantry small arm except possibly the Kalashnikov. Does that make Grandpappy's bolt action hunting rifle a "military grade" weapon?
I guess my gun knowledge needs upgrading ( no doubt lol) but I guess I am in my way due to my gandfather who was in ww2. He always said you only need a gun to hunt for food in your own country. So I guess iis alot more different then before but I thought the term millitary weaponry was considered semi auto clip feed.

Long rifles are all that I own and 2 hand guns for when I go visit the U.S.A.

I need to go to work every day.
Millions of people on welfare depend on me. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Yeah, they did that with the first federal AWB.

It didn't work, because the people who wrote the law had no fething clue what they were talking about.

If all the experts are on the other side of the argument, perhaps that's a sign of something.
   
Made in us
Last Remaining Whole C'Tan






Pleasant Valley, Iowa

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If a specification is needed for "military grade" it can be developed. This obsession with denying definitions of terms is a peculiarity of the pro-gun movement..


It's not a peculiarity. It's a wholly reasonable response to when people call for banning things, and then immediately revealing they have no idea what exactly it is they need to ban. People who don't know anything are calling for a restriction on rights that mean a lot to a lot of people. It's more than a little frustrating.

You know that the last AWB was completely stupid, you referenced it here somewhere. So it's very irritating that we appear to be heading for another one, once again framed around totally arbitrary stuff like barrel shrouds and pistol grips and bayonet lugs, all of which is in furtherance of reducing deaths in incidents that are already a teeny, tiny fraction of all homicides, let alone all deaths - all the time while crowing meaningless buzzwords like "common sense gun control" by people who generally believe that fully automatic weapons are lawful and easily accessible. All of this could be avoided if we had universal background checks, they swear, despite the fact the guy in the most recent event we're not talking about had multiple background and psychological tests - the last few high profile spree murders/mass shootings happened with lawfully acquired weapons!

Within 3 years, we're probably going to have a a ban on a class of rifles that kills about 250 people a year - or about half the people that are killed with hammers - even while knowing damn well everyone knows the last "assault weapon ban" didn't do anything useful, and that we're not going to do anything about, say, pistols, which kill 6,000 people in the US a year.

So it's not dissembling or diversion that is causing this "obsession with definitions", as you put it, it's at least asking for an attempt at an honest discourse with people who have made a minimal effort to speak intelligently on a matter.


This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/19 02:58:47


 lord_blackfang wrote:
Respect to the guy who subscribed just to post a massive ASCII dong in the chat and immediately get banned.

 Flinty wrote:
The benefit of slate is that its.actually a.rock with rock like properties. The downside is that it's a rock
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.


To what end?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/19 03:55:20


Tier 1 is the new Tactical.

My IDF-Themed Guard Army P&M Blog:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/355940.page 
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

Seaward wrote:
 Kilkrazy wrote:
All the above being true, classifications can be made.

Yeah, they did that with the first federal AWB.

It didn't work, because the people who wrote the law had no fething clue what they were talking about.

If all the experts are on the other side of the argument, perhaps that's a sign of something.


It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it. This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.

The same logic is behind the continual frustration of programmes to research gun deployment and gun violence in the USA, even extending to making it illegal to maintain a register of weapons.

This leaves both sides with arguments based on emotions and anecdotes rather than solid research. This obviously is useless for effective public policy, and tends to favour the status quo.

Research done partly in other countries indicates that having lots of guns easily available leads to a greater number of injuries, and worse injuries. This is also supported by basic public health statistics like the suicide rate and murder rate in the US. These of course can be disputed because of the factors I mentioned above.

However what we don't have is solid evidence concerning the benefits of guns. It has to be seen by both sides that there are benefits to guns. Everyone who wants a gun isn't a swivel-eyed loon planning a record-breaking massacre. The majority of guns are used for legitimate purposes.

The question should be whether illegitimate gun violence could be reduced by sensible controls without compromising worthwhile gun use. It's impossible to look into that in the current situation.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in us
Imperial Admiral




 Kilkrazy wrote:


It is a sign that the "experts" don't have any interest in engaging with the process, in fact they want to frustrate it. This is because the pro-gun side doesn't want to help in any way something they fear might lead to gun control. It does not obviate the point that realistic classifications of guns can be made, and need to be made in order to study what weapons actually are dangerous and might be considered for legal curbs.


Well, no. That's remarkably untrue. Classifications of guns exist. People who know about firearms already make use of them - for instance, they accurately refer to genuine assault rifles as "assault rifles."

What the experts I mentioned have no interest in is helping a willfully ignorant political movement come up with new, politically-motivated 'classifications' solely for the purpose of fear mongering.

The NRA was on board with the federal AWB in the '90s. They learned the hard way why it was a terrible idea. They lost a lot of support to get a decade's worth of legislation that, by the government's own admission, didn't do a damn thing.

People who claim that banning high capacity magazines will be effective because "once you ban them, all the bullets in the remaining ones will eventually be used up!" don't care about facts. (And yes, that exact argument has been used by an elected official.) They're the guys claiming that the female body has ways to shut pregnancy down in cases of legitimate rape of the gun debate.

The same logic is behind the continual frustration of programmes to research gun deployment and gun violence in the USA, even extending to making it illegal to maintain a register of weapons.

Registries were made illegal because the anti-gun side has not been shy about how such registries would be used.

The question should be whether illegitimate gun violence could be reduced by sensible controls without compromising worthwhile gun use. It's impossible to look into that in the current situation.

No, it isn't.

It is, however, impossible to look into that when one side is trying to pass off, "Barrel shrouds alter .223 terminal ballistics and thus should be banned!" as sensible.
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: