Sign in to follow this  
jocal505

Highland Park Ban on AW's and LCM's Upheld

Recommended Posts

Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban (Chicago Tribune Article)

 

 

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Highland Park attorney Steven Elrod said the measure was intended to prevent the kind of mass shootings that have occurred elsewhere. The ruling cited federal data showing that similar laws elsewhere reduced crimes involving assault weapons and stated that residents have many other options for self-defense.In a 2-1 decision, the federal appellate court in Chicago upheld the city’s ban on assault weapons, including AK-47s and AR-15s and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban (Chicago Tribune Article)

 

 

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Highland Park attorney Steven Elrod said the measure was intended to prevent the kind of mass shootings that have occurred elsewhere. The ruling cited federal data showing that similar laws elsewhere reduced crimes involving assault weapons and stated that residents have many other options for self-defense.In a 2-1 decision, the federal appellate court in Chicago upheld the city’s ban on assault weapons, including AK-47s and AR-15s and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

 

 

 

How many crimes involved assault weapons?

 

God, that bayonet mount must make them lethal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder why no one cries & bitches about white guns?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This city ordinance banning assault rifles must be based on some really solid evidence and past history of success, right? If only we had some history of similar things and then extensive studies of those bans to see how they worked. Hmmm, where have I heard about that before..... Hmmm, can't remember.... can't remember. Someone help me out here. Its like right on the tip of my tongue.

 

Ideally, one of these days the Federal gov't will ban assault rifles and large cap mags for something like 10 years as an experiment and then the FBI could do thorough studies to see how it worked. That would be really cool wouldn't it and then we could stop all this guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ten/fifteen murders a week in Shitcago. Wonder how many are/were committed with EBR's?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This city ordinance banning assault rifles must be based on some really solid evidence and past history of success, right? Jeffie, this is your voice pretending to support of better research. If only we had some history of similar things and then extensive studies This is your voice speaking out for extensive study, right? of those bans to see how they worked. Hmmm, where have I heard about that before..... Hmmm, can't remember.... can't remember. Someone help me out here. Its like right on the tip of my tongue.

 

Ideally, one of these days the Federal gov't will ban assault rifles and large cap mags for something like 10 years as an experiment and then the FBI could do thorough studies to see how it worked. That would be really cool wouldn't it and then we could stop all this guessing.

SImple Jeff, even the gutted, anemic '94 AW ban had measurable results. The scientists are seeking progress in gun safety, even in the margins.

Va. data show drop in criminal firepower during assault weapons ban

 

Jeff, where is "over the top" with guns? You can't manage your own guns. They are being managed by others.

 

You could always read the majority decision to gain some depth. This is a federal court, concluding the same reasoning which the NY SAFE Act articulated. It is part of a pattern of restriction of AW's due to public and judicial concern about AW's.

 

“The 12-page majority opinion says the prohibition doesn’t violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it leaves would-be gun owners other options,” according to the Tribune. “That includes the option of buying a handgun.”

 

The core of the dissenting opinion seems to be this:

 

Judge Daniel A. Manion issued a dissenting opinion. In it, he writes that “the ultimate decision for what constitutes the most effective means of defending one’s home, family, and property resides in individual citizens and not in the government.”

 

This statement contains hyperbole, IMO. The rule of law is not "government" per se, because the law can often reflect the will,and needs, and due process of the people. And the statement is ignoring a key provision of the Heller decision. This one:

Heller's 2. 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. Pp. 54–56. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally found some time to read the ruling.

 

... instead of trying to decide what “level” of scrutiny applies, and how it works, inquiries that do not resolve any concrete dispute, we think it better to ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” ..., and whether law‐abiding citizens retain adequate means of self‐defense.

 

The features prohibited by Highland Park’s ordinance were not common in 1791. Most guns available then could not fire more than one shot without being reloaded; revolvers with rotating cylinders weren’t widely available until the early 19th century....

 

 

Really? So when evaluating first amendment concerns, we should look only at whether the government is regulating something that existed in 1791, not computers, radio, TV, or anything like that?

 

... states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military‐grade firearms, so as to have them available when the militia is called to duty.

 

This is a pre-14th amendment view. The 2nd prevents the federal government from disarming what Publius called "the great body of the people" in Federalist 29. The 14th extended some of the Bill of Rights protections to state and local governments and McDonald says the 2nd is one of those. That means the state, like the federal government, can't have unlimited power to ban any and all weapons.

 

The opinion talks about the kinds of weapons militia members would be expected to bring if called to service. To me, nothing fits that description better than what the opinion itself calls "civilian versions" of military rifles. Meaning: "assault" weapons. Should I really bring my 30-30 or shotgun, or would a mean-looking weapon be more useful?

 

The opinion confuses semi-auto's and machine guns quite a bit and incorrectly states that machine guns are banned. There are something like a couple hundred thousand of them out there in civilian hands. New ones are banned because the registry was closed in 1986. The opinion talks about such guns having been banned since the 30s, but that's only true for poor people. Anyone wealthy enough to pay the tax could buy one until 1986. Not that there's anything regressive about that.

 

After attempting to explain away the various reasons the ban won't accomplish anything tangible, the court said this:

 

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit.

 

 

Mmm... Yummy unicorn poo.

 

I'll read the dissent later. It's getting light out and I'm taking mom for a boat ride today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What locations do the owners of the assault weapons want Assault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally found some time to read the ruling.

 

... instead of trying to decide what “level” of scrutiny applies, and how it works, inquiries that do not resolve any concrete dispute, we think it better to ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” ..., and whether law‐abiding citizens retain adequate means of self‐defense.

 

The features prohibited by Highland Park’s ordinance were not common in 1791. Most guns available then could not fire more than one shot without being reloaded; revolvers with rotating cylinders weren’t widely available until the early 19th century....

 

 

Really? So when evaluating first amendment concerns, we should look only at whether the government is regulating something that existed in 1791, not computers, radio, TV, or anything like that? This is pixie dust rhetoric, to avoid facing the increased firepower in play. Such firepower needs consideration.

 

... states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military‐grade firearms, so as to have them available when the militia is called to duty.

 

This is a pre-14th amendment view. The 2nd prevents the federal government from disarming what Publius called "the great body of the people" in Federalist 29. The 14th extended some of the Bill of Rights protections to state and local governments and McDonald says the 2nd is one of those. That means the state, like the federal government, can't have unlimited power to ban any and all weapons. Hyperbole. Who is discussing "unlimited power to ban any and all weapons"? 1.States have plenty of authority to set state laws WRT weapons, as demonstrated by several appeals courts. 2.LCM's and AW's are a finite subset of thousands of readily available firearms.

 

The opinion talks about the kinds of weapons militia members would be expected to bring if called to service. To me, nothing fits that description better than what the opinion itself calls "civilian versions" of military rifles. Meaning: "assault" weapons. Should I really bring my 30-30 or shotgun, or would a mean-looking weapon be more useful? Are you imagining, or actually enlisted in the FL militia?

 

The opinion confuses semi-auto's and machine guns quite a bit and incorrectly states that machine guns are banned. MAJOR CRIMES UNIT TO AISLE SIX; cardboard soap box time.There are something like a couple hundred thousand of them out there in civilian hands. New ones are banned because the registry was closed in 1986. The opinion talks about such guns having been banned since the 30s, but that's only true for poor people. Anyone wealthy enough to pay the tax could buy one until 1986. Not that there's anything regressive about that.

 

After attempting to explain away the various reasons the ban won't accomplish anything tangible, (in other words, for the Gun CLub Choir, Tom breezily dismisses the considered conclusions of the majority opinion) the court said this:

 

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. In other words, the public had felt and recognized a lack of safety in play WRT certain battlefield-bred firearms.

 

Mmm... Yummy unicorn poo. Says the libertarian wannabe guru.

 

 

I'll read the dissent later. It's getting light out and I'm taking mom for a boat ride today.

 

IMO, Highland Park will be better off without unreasonable kooks and AW's. It's just damage cotrol being supported by federal appeals courts, again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

The opinion talks about the kinds of weapons militia members would be expected to bring if called to service. To me, nothing fits that description better than what the opinion itself calls "civilian versions" of military rifles. Meaning: "assault" weapons. Should I really bring my 30-30 or shotgun, or would a mean-looking weapon be more useful?

..

...Are you imagining, or actually enlisted in the FL militia?

 

I'm part of what Publius called the "great body of the yeomanry" much like Jack Miller, Dick Heller, and Otis McDonald.

 

But you didn't answer my question. Which would be more useful?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Finally found some time to read the ruling.

 

... instead of trying to decide what “level” of scrutiny applies, and how it works, inquiries that do not resolve any concrete dispute, we think it better to ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification or those that have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” ..., and whether law‐abiding citizens retain adequate means of self‐defense.

 

The features prohibited by Highland Park’s ordinance were not common in 1791. Most guns available then could not fire more than one shot without being reloaded; revolvers with rotating cylinders weren’t widely available until the early 19th century....

 

 

Really? So when evaluating first amendment concerns, we should look only at whether the government is regulating something that existed in 1791, not computers, radio, TV, or anything like that? This is pixie dust rhetoric, to avoid facing the increased firepower in play. Such firepower needs consideration.

 

... states, which are in charge of militias, should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military‐grade firearms, so as to have them available when the militia is called to duty.

 

This is a pre-14th amendment view. The 2nd prevents the federal government from disarming what Publius called "the great body of the people" in Federalist 29. The 14th extended some of the Bill of Rights protections to state and local governments and McDonald says the 2nd is one of those. That means the state, like the federal government, can't have unlimited power to ban any and all weapons. Hyperbole. Who is discussing "unlimited power to ban any and all weapons"? 1.States have plenty of authority to set state laws WRT weapons, as demonstrated by several appeals courts. 2.LCM's and AW's are a finite subset of thousands of readily available firearms.

 

The opinion talks about the kinds of weapons militia members would be expected to bring if called to service. To me, nothing fits that description better than what the opinion itself calls "civilian versions" of military rifles. Meaning: "assault" weapons. Should I really bring my 30-30 or shotgun, or would a mean-looking weapon be more useful? Are you imagining, or actually enlisted in the FL militia?

 

The opinion confuses semi-auto's and machine guns quite a bit and incorrectly states that machine guns are banned. MAJOR CRIMES UNIT TO AISLE SIX; cardboard soap box time.There are something like a couple hundred thousand of them out there in civilian hands. New ones are banned because the registry was closed in 1986. The opinion talks about such guns having been banned since the 30s, but that's only true for poor people. Anyone wealthy enough to pay the tax could buy one until 1986. Not that there's anything regressive about that.

 

After attempting to explain away the various reasons the ban won't accomplish anything tangible, (in other words, for the Gun CLub Choir, Tom breezily dismisses the considered conclusions of the majority opinion) the court said this:

 

If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that’s a substantial benefit. In other words, the public had felt and recognized a lack of safety in play WRT certain battlefield-bred firearms.

 

Mmm... Yummy unicorn poo. Says the libertarian wannabe guru.

 

 

I'll read the dissent later. It's getting light out and I'm taking mom for a boat ride today.

 

IMO, Highland Park will be better off without unreasonable kooks and AW's. It's just damage cotrol being supported by federal appeals courts, again.

 

 

 

Well I for one will be able to sleep much better knowing that future psycho suicidal gunmen hell bent on shooting up other people will now think twice before breaking this law.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I get to the dissent, one more from the opinion of the court:

 

Plaintiffs ask us to distinguish machine guns from semi‐automatic weapons on the ground that the latter are commonly owned for lawful purposes. Cf. Heller , 554 U.S. at 625. This does not track the way Heller distinguished United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939): The Court took from Miller the rule that the Second Amendment does not authorize private persons to possess weapons such as machine guns and sawed‐off shotguns that the government would not expect (or allow) citizens to bring with them when the militia is called to service. During Prohibition the Thompson submachine gun (the “Tommy gun”) was all too common in Chicago, but that popularity didn’t give it a constitutional immunity from the federal prohibition enacted in 1934. (The Tommy gun is a machine gun, as defined by 18 U.S.C. §921(23) and 26 U.S.C. §5845( B), and generally forbidden by 18 U.S.C. §922(a)(4), because it fires multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger; like the Uzi it is called a “submachine gun” to indicate that it is smaller and more mobile than other machine guns. The AK‐47 and AR‐15 (M16) rifles in military use also are submachine guns, though civilian versions are restricted to semi‐automatic fire.)

 

 

That's not what Miller said nor what the court took from it in Heller, nor historically accurate.

 

The court in Miller only said that nobody presented evidence to them that sawed-off shotguns were militarily useful weapons. A couple of them were WWI vets and knew what a trench gun was, but knowing a thing and having evidence presented to you are different things. Nobody presented evidence. Possibly because Miller was dead and didn't show up.

 

The Miller court noted that militia are expected to show up bearing arms "supplied by themselves" and of a kind "in common use" by soldiers. The government does expect and allow machine guns and short shotguns for soldiers and has for a long time.

 

No federal prohibition on machine guns was enacted in 1934. A tax was enacted and a registry created, but people who could pay the steep tax could still buy them until 1986 when the registry was closed. Now, people with tons of money can still buy them if they were made before 1986 and if they pay the tax, which is still $200. That was a lot of money back in 1934 but is a small part of the cost for machine gun owners today.

 

The bolded sentence attempts to muddy the distinction between civilian and military versions of rifles but if you turn an AR-15 into an M-16 and then let the ATF know what you've done, you'll soon learn that the two are definitely NOT the same thing.

 

They're close and for that reason it seems to me that "assault" weapons are precisely the weapons the government would "expect (or allow) citizens to bring with them when the militia is called to service." If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(...) They're close and for that reason it seems to me that "assault" weapons are precisely the weapons the government would "expect (or allow) citizens to bring with them when the militia is called to service." If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

Take your whatever gun, after its Heller-approved regulation, then report to your governor, Badgeless Boy.

Your link to Federalist 29 does not suggest freewheeling anti-tyrant mayhem, but rather state authority over your wild fantasy: POSSE COMITATUS.

 

From Madison's paragraph 8, on your link. I include the entire paragraph to avoid slanting anyting.

 

 

What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it.

 

 

 

 

What's more, Madison expands his thoughts in Federalist 46, where he (again) lays out state militias, with self-elected officers...following state-appointed officers, to challenge federal mis-deeds.

 

 

It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

 

James Madison wasn't about unsupervised lone wolves with AW's.

 

Madison was writing in favor of the new U.S. Constitution during the ratification debate of 1788. He dismissed the fear that the stronger national government’s standing army could become a tool of tyranny by pointing to the militias of the “subordinate governments”—i.e., the states.

Madison contrasted that early American system to European societies, supposedly more susceptible to oppression. He assured readers that those nations lacked two things: arms and “the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves.” Madison was “not certain” that arms alone could cast off national tyranny, but felt “the greatest assurance” that the combination of arms and local republics could.

Madison didn’t address the possibility that state governments could be tyrannical, aided by their militias/armed populace. Or what would happen if the militia system he knew went away and the national government and standing army grew, but governments at all levels also grew more democratic—the situation we have now.

Pasted from <http://boston1775.blogspot.com/2011/01/another-fake-founders-quotation.html>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Manion's dissent noted a few of the problems that are likely to come up on appeal:

 

Indeed, the central holding of Heller is that citizens have an individual right to keep and bear firearms that does not depend upon any association with a militia. In so holding, Heller effectively laid to rest the notion of collective Second Amendment rights, and then McDonald placed a wreath on its grave.

Here, the court comes not to bury Miller but to exhume it.To that end, it surveys the landscape of firearm regulations asif Miller were still the controlling authority and Heller were amere gloss on it. The court’s reading culminates in a novel test: whether the weapons in question were “common at the time of ratification” or have “some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia,” and “whether law-abiding citizens retain adequate means of self-defense.”

The problem is Heller expressly disclaimed two of the three aspects of this test; and it did so not as a matter of simple housekeeping, but as an immediate consequence of its central holding. It held as “bordering on the frivolous” arguments that recognized a right to bear only those arms in existence at the time of ratification. Heller, 554 U.S. at 582 (“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.”). Likewise, it expressly overruled any reading of the Second Amendment that conditioned the rights to keep and bear arms on one’s association with a militia. Id. at 612. (“It is not possible to read this as discussing anything other than an individual right unconnected to militia service.”). For this reason, there is no way to square this court’s holding with the clear precedents of Heller and McDonald.

 

 

The contrast between "we think it better to ask whether a regulation bans weapons that were common at the time of ratification" and “Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment" could not be more clear.

 

I hope this makes it to the Supreme Court so we can settle once and for all the completely frivolous (not just bordering on frivolous) argument that only 18th century muskets are protected under the second amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting footnote in the dissent:

 

This question is best viewed as a separate, threshold matter than as an aspect of the regulated activity. An example bears this out: because hand grenades have never been commonly used by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, it matters not whether the regulation is an ordinance prohibiting ownership of such weapons, a licensing scheme impeding access to them, or a regulation setting conditions on their manufacture or sale: the Second Amendment does not apply to such inquiry because the type of weapon is not covered by it.

 

 

The question of whether grenades should be 2A protected is one I hadn't considered. The judge is right in a legal sense, but getting back to the question Jocal won't answer, if the militia were called to service, it would be far better if we were to show up with AR's than with .22 caliber revolvers and everyone knows it.

 

Another thing you expect to see on the equipment list of an infantryman? Grenades. So whether you refer to the militia as "the great body of yeomanry" or "other classes of citizens" or "the whole nation" as Publius did in Federalist 29, maybe all of us should have access to them? If we need a "sporting purpose" I would nominate fishing. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Judge Manion's dissent exhibits a refreshing understanding of the many and varied rights protected by the second amendment and how courts should view them. He also seems to share my distaste for unicorn poo.

 

The difficulties arise in the next prong; rather than being the least restrictive means to address these particular public safety issues, Highland Park’s ordinance serves as the bluntest of instruments, banning a class of weapons outright, and restricting the rights of its citizens to select the means by which they defend their homes and families. Here, one need not parse out the various alternatives that Highland Park could have chosen to achieve these ends; any alternative would have been less restrictive. This can only yield one conclusion: the provisions in Highland Park’s ordinance prohibiting its citizens from acquiring or possessing assault rifles or large-capacity magazines are unconstitutional insofar as they prohibit citizens from lawfully keeping such weapons in their homes.

...

Here, the court makes no attempt to parse out the various activities prohibited byHighland Park’s ordinance; instead it treats as identical activities as diverse as keeping weapons in the home and manufacturing them for sale. Heller requires courts to identify the specific activity regulated; the court here failed to do this.

...

The evidentiary record:
The court ignores the central piece of evidence in this case: that millions of Americans own and use AR-type rifles lawfully. (A.65–73). Instead, it adopts —as the final word on the matter and with no discussion— Highland Park’s position that the evidence is inconclusive on this question; and it does this notwithstanding the fact that all of the relevant evidence supports defendant’s contention that AR-type rifles are commonly used throughout this nation.

...

Judicial findings:
Finally, the court justifies the ordinance as valid because it “may increase the public’s sense of safety.” Perhaps so, but there is no evidentiary basis for this finding.The court is not empowered to uphold a regulation as constitutional based solely on its ability to divine public sentiment about the matter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Publius was Hamilton w/respect to 29, Madison w/respect to 46.

 

Sincerely,

 

Publius

 

Correction noted. (Yet Publius means Publius.)

Faux sincerity noted.

 

Now discuss the issue: the boys in your "Posse Commitatus" responded to state authority (not individual whim), according to both Madison and Hamilton.

 

It was proposed that way (says The Federalist), and adopted that way (says the constitution).

 

To summarize, all the enthusiasm over your personal guns directly fighting tyranny (in say, Gabby GIffords or Obama) would apply only thru state authority, if we're going by the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

Correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Publius was Hamilton w/respect to 29, Madison w/respect to 46.

 

Sincerely,

 

Publius

 

Correction noted. (Yet Publius means Publius.)

Faux sincerity noted.

 

Now discuss the issue: the boys in your "Posse Commitatus" responded to state authority (not individual whim), according to both Madison and Hamilton.

 

It was proposed that way (says The Federalist), and adopted that way (says the constitution).

 

To summarize, all the enthusiasm over your personal guns directly fighting tyranny (in say, Gabby GIffords or Obama) would apply only thru state authority, if we're going by the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

Correct?

 

 

 

I'm not sure how enthusiasm applies. I think possession does, regardless of feelings about it. US v Miller points out that militia are expected to appear when called for service bearing arms "supplied by themselves." So the 2A was written in part to preserve our ability to show up with appropriate weapons.

 

So answer my question: If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Publius was Hamilton w/respect to 29, Madison w/respect to 46.

 

Sincerely,

 

Publius

 

Correction noted. (Yet Publius means Publius.)

Faux sincerity noted.

 

Now discuss the issue: the boys in your "Posse Commitatus" responded to state authority (not individual whim), according to both Madison and Hamilton.

 

It was proposed that way (says The Federalist), and adopted that way (says the constitution).

 

To summarize, all the enthusiasm over your personal guns directly fighting tyranny (in say, Gabby GIffords or Obama) would apply only thru state authority, if we're going by the intentions of the founding fathers.

 

Correct?

 

 

 

I'm not sure how enthusiasm applies. With such a dodge, this conversation is no longer intelligent. I think possession does, regardless of feelings about it. US v Miller points out that militia are expected to appear when called for service bearing arms "supplied by themselves." So the 2A was written in part to preserve our ability to show up with appropriate weapons.

 

So answer my myopic, childish, obvious, and tricky question: If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

 

I answered your question, and I resent that you did not assimilate the answer. See the first words in Post 16.

I repeat: take whatever weapon, but hear me clearly, it will be regulated, per Heller.

 

Heller verified several gun restrictions on individuals, locations, and particular weapons, and generously noted that their list of...

“presumptively lawful regulatory measures… does not purport to be exhaustive.”

 

 

*********************************

 

Publius, Dodger Boy, you are avoiding the little bit about authority, per The Federalist.

 

I am getting drawn into a stupid fantasy, a conversation about your theoretical, VERY UNLIKELY militia activity, with this gun or that gun.

Tricky questions formed with junior-high-school-level brilliance, visualizing big bad Tom Ray in militia service. While you are avoiding the little bit about your authority to fight tyrants with whatever weapon.

 

Poor lad, you are so confused which gun to take, but your black gun must be obtained without paperwork, due to personal scruples about liberty.

You go on about indoor militias vs outdoor militias: all the wisdom of the Third Grader Trail.

Bans which are bans when you say they are, but not when you say they're not (e.g. research bans, closed registry bans, and machine gun bans shift around a bit).

 

In your pubescent wet dream, please consider that you are fighting any tyranny under officers chosen by yourselves, but "appointed" by the State...your Governor.

 

If you move out of state, you report to Obama. Have fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Appeals court upholds Highland Park assault weapons ban (Chicago Tribune Article)

 

 

A federal court Monday upheld Highland Park’s ban on assault weapons — possibly setting the stage for a showdown over the issue before the U.S. Supreme Court. Highland Park attorney Steven Elrod said the measure was intended to prevent the kind of mass shootings that have occurred elsewhere. The ruling cited federal data showing that similar laws elsewhere reduced crimes involving assault weapons and stated that residents have many other options for self-defense.In a 2-1 decision, the federal appellate court in Chicago upheld the city’s ban on assault weapons, including AK-47s and AR-15s and magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

 

 

 

 

The second amendment says nothing about self defense. Where did you and these judicial weenies get the idea that is why gun ownership is protected.

 

This is what happens when you start to be governed by the rule of politics and not the rule of law.

 

AND, that is why the second amendment protects gun ownership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

I answered your question, and I resent that you did not assimilate the answer. See the first words in Post 16.
I repeat: take whatever weapon, but hear me clearly, it will be regulated, per Heller.


But if "whatever weapon" is an AR and I live in Highland Park, there's a little problem. This thread is about that little problem.

Regulated meant well trained back then. It means regulated now. It doesn't mean banned.

If you succeed in your goal of confiscating 10% of the guns in America and preventing any more "assault" weapons from being sold, your answer to my question makes no sense. It's no longer legally possible, so there's only one answer.

I can only conclude that you think a .22 revolver is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR. I disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

I answered your question, and I resent that you did not assimilate the answer. See the first words in Post 16.

I repeat: take whatever weapon, but hear me clearly, it will be regulated, per Heller.

 

But if "whatever weapon" is an AR and I live in Highland Park, there's a little problem. This thread is about that little problem.

 

Regulated meant well trained back then. It means regulated now. It doesn't mean banned.

 

If you succeed in your goal of confiscating 10% of the guns in America and preventing any more "assault" weapons from being sold, your answer to my question makes no sense. It's no longer legally possible, so there's only one answer.

 

I can only conclude that you think a .22 revolver is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR. I disagree.

Whew! What are you going on about?

 

 

The Militia Complications in Highland Park Meltdown.

Starring Tom Ray (with a Jocal-approved AR-15!)

 

 

 

The Highland Park Federal Appeals Court ruling is the way it's sorting out, sometimes, Tom.

The California appeals courts have been generous in interpreting pre-emption.

Most of the PNW has gone to strong background checks, and NV may join us.

But New England leads the nation in effective laws, and the stats show it there, big-time.

Other pockets of the country have gone a different direction.

 

Stop your crying and wailing about handguns against tyrants already.

An avid gunsman (or a militia afficianado) could, well, just move to Florida, and take his AK OK.

Gun culture separations between regions are sorting about, based on gun laws.

 

If I'm right, the stats will show safety polarization...and they may have done so already.

I have some pretty good geo-political relationships to gun laws to share. There's a pattern, and it's bloody.aa%20FL%20SYG%20gun%20deaths%20chart_zps

 

aaflorida_zps85b12ee8.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

A "well regulated militia" meant, in part, that everyone would use common ammo, sometimes specified in the law. See US v Miller.

 

The problem with trusting the government to issue common ones for protection against government tyranny should be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it? Lexington and Concord made it pretty clear long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

I answered your question, and I resent that you did not assimilate the answer. See the first words in Post 16.

I repeat: take whatever weapon, but hear me clearly, it will be regulated, per Heller.

 

But if "whatever weapon" is an AR and I live in Highland Park, there's a little problem. This thread is about that little problem.

 

Regulated meant well trained back then. It means regulated now. It doesn't mean banned.

 

If you succeed in your goal of confiscating 10% of the guns in America and preventing any more "assault" weapons from being sold, your answer to my question makes no sense. It's no longer legally possible, so there's only one answer.

 

I can only conclude that you think a .22 revolver is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR. I disagree.

Whew! What are you going on about?

 

 

The fact that there's only one legal choice in your "whatever weapon" answer.

 

If you succeed in confiscating all the AR's and other assault weapons nationwide, your "move to Florida" answer won't suffice. That's part of the reason the 14th amendment applies federal protection of certain rights to the states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

unnamed.jpg

 

That's all I have to say. :lol:

 

 

You can say that again....

 

 

 

RockpileSteel10-15-2011036.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

...

 

If I'm right, the stats will show safety polarization...and they may have done so already.

I have some pretty good geo-political relationships to gun laws to share. There's a pattern, and it's bloody.aa%20FL%20SYG%20gun%20deaths%20chart_zps

 

aaflorida_zps85b12ee8.jpg

 

 

The concealed weapons permits we started issuing in 1987 are the problem?

 

People generally conceal handguns, so the problem should be particularly severe and increasing with respect to handguns. Let's see what the FDLE says about that...

 

Flfirearmmurders-2013.gif

 

Oh. Decreasing. Like our murder rate. PANIC!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

A "well regulated militia" meant, in part, that everyone would use common ammo, sometimes specified in the law. See US v Miller.

 

The problem with trusting the government to issue common ones for protection against government tyranny should be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it? Lexington and Concord made it pretty clear long ago.

 

 

Fucking hilarious looking from the outside. Talk about American-Exceptional ism.

 

Government Tyranny is only a bad thing inside the country. If they want to go a tear a second arsehole in a few hundred thousand Iraqis for no apparent reason, that's all good! Faaarkin hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

A "well regulated militia" meant, in part, that everyone would use common ammo, sometimes specified in the law. See US v Miller.

 

The problem with trusting the government to issue common ones for protection against government tyranny should be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it? Lexington and Concord made it pretty clear long ago.

 

 

Fucking hilarious looking from the outside. Talk about American-Exceptional ism.

 

Government Tyranny is only a bad thing inside the country. If they want to go a tear a second arsehole in a few hundred thousand Iraqis for no apparent reason, that's all good! Faaarkin hypocrites.

 

 

 

Let me guess....you have a poster of a naked Saddam Hussien on your bedroom ceiling?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

unnamed.jpg

 

That's all I have to say. :lol:

 

 

You can say that again....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Booze ans NGS.

rednecks-with-guns.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

:) , don't mind if I quote myself ?

 

 

Today's "Minuteman" definition would state that you own a rifle of modern design,

(detachable box mag, for quick re-load, reliable enough for use in harsh conditions, etc, )

 

, which uses the same ammunition as the "regular" army ,

( _that_ is the "well regulated" part)

 

, so that, if you should be called up,

 

_You_ will be able to take a place on the firing line among the "Regular" soldiers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

unnamed.jpg

 

That's all I have to say. :lol:

 

 

You can say that again....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Booze ans NGS.

rednecks-with-guns.jpg

 

 

 

Sorry but I've never been to Pusstralia....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

A "well regulated militia" meant, in part, that everyone would use common ammo, sometimes specified in the law. See US v Miller.

 

The problem with trusting the government to issue common ones for protection against government tyranny should be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it? Lexington and Concord made it pretty clear long ago.

 

 

Fucking hilarious looking from the outside. Talk about American-Exceptional ism.

 

Government Tyranny is only a bad thing inside the country. If they want to go a tear a second arsehole in a few hundred thousand Iraqis for no apparent reason, that's all good! Faaarkin hypocrites.

 

 

Why is this reply directed at me? I'm hardly known as a supporter of any of our nation-building or other meddling around the globe. Kinda the opposite. Iraq wars included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

A "well regulated militia" meant, in part, that everyone would use common ammo, sometimes specified in the law. See US v Miller.

 

The problem with trusting the government to issue common ones for protection against government tyranny should be pretty obvious. Do I have to explain it? Lexington and Concord made it pretty clear long ago.

 

 

Fucking hilarious looking from the outside. Talk about American-Exceptional ism.

 

Government Tyranny is only a bad thing inside the country. If they want to go a tear a second arsehole in a few hundred thousand Iraqis for no apparent reason, that's all good! Faaarkin hypocrites.

 

 

Why is this reply directed at me? I'm hardly known as a supporter of any of our nation-building or other meddling around the globe. Kinda the opposite. Iraq wars included.

 

 

Wasn't @ you per se. Just a rant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry but I've never been to Pusstralia....

 

 

Slide1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to find a more attractive 'partner'.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

But then an armory sort of defeats the notion of "Keep and bear". You certainly can't be "keeping" arms if they are locked up in the armory and only issued when the gov't wants you to have them. That is the antithesis of the 2A - the 2A was designed such that the gov't could not prevent you from taking up arms if necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

rednecks-with-guns.jpg

 

 

Well, at least those hillbillies understand the concept of "keep your finger off the trigger" and don't point the gun at the camera.

 

Unlike this kid....

 

2014.02.28-mrconservative-5310d2902fc27.

 

Charleston+Thug+Life+illustrations.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

But then an armory sort of defeats the notion of "Keep and bear". You certainly can't be "keeping" arms if they are locked up in the armory and only issued when the gov't wants you to have them. That is the antithesis of the 2A - the 2A was designed such that the gov't could not prevent you from taking up arms if necessary.

 

 

I think preventing access is the point, not a side-effect.

 

Note that OR understands things like different calibers and parts but won't answer a really easy question:

 

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

Responding with a worry that AR ammo might be incompatible is nonsense. .223 is not exactly obscure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:) , don't mind if I quote myself ?

 

 

Today's "Minuteman" definition would state that you own a rifle of modern design,

(detachable box mag, for quick re-load, reliable enough for use in harsh conditions, etc, )

 

, which uses the same ammunition as the "regular" army ,

( _that_ is the "well regulated" part)

 

, so that, if you should be called up,

 

_You_ will be able to take a place on the firing line among the "Regular" soldiers.

 

 

Well regulated meant things like telling you how many fathoms of match you must have. And telling you that you must show up with an effective weapon.

 

The possession of arms also implied the possession of ammunition, and the authorities paid quite as much attention to the latter as to the former.

 

A year later [1632] it was ordered that any single man who had not furnished himself with arms might be put out to service, and this became a permanent part of the legislation of the colony [Massachusetts].

 

Also,

 

Clauses intended to insure the possession of arms and ammunition by all who were subject to military service appear in all the important enactments concerning military affairs. Fines were the penalty for delinquency, whether of towns or individuals.

 

 

According to the usage of the times, the infantry of Massachusetts consisted of pikemen and musketeers. The law, as enacted in 1649 and thereafter, provided that each of the former should be armed with a pike, corselet, head-piece, sword, and knapsack. The musketeer should carry a "good fixed musket," not under bastard musket bore, not less than three feet, nine inches, nor more than four feet three inches in length, a priming wire, scourer, and mould, a sword, rest, bandoleers, one pound of powder, twenty bullets, and two fathoms of match. The law also required that two-thirds of each company should be musketeers.

 

The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784, provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should "contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, . . ." Also,

 

That every noncommissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm,

 

etc.

 

By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:

 

That every able-bodied Male Person, being %5Bp181%5D a Citizen of this State, or of any of the United States, and residing in this State, (except such Persons as are hereinafter excepted) and who are of the Age of Sixteen, and under the Age of Forty-five Years, shall, by the Captain or commanding Officer of the Beat in which such Citizens shall reside, within four Months after the passing of this Act, be enrolled in the Company of such Beat. . . .

 

That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; . . .

 

The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening's Statutes) declared,

 

The defense and safety of the commonwealth depend upon having its citizens properly armed and taught the knowledge of military duty.

It further provided for organization and control of the Militia, and directed that "All free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years," with certain exceptions, "shall be inrolled or formed into companies." "There shall be a private muster of every company once in two months."

 

Also that

 

Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good %5Bp182%5D powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies. Provided, That the militia of the counties westward of the Blue Ridge, and the counties below adjoining thereto, shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof. And every of the said officers, non-commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer. If any private shall make it appear to the satisfaction of the court hereafter to be appointed for trying delinquencies under this act that he is so poor that he cannot purchase the arms herein required, such court shall cause them to be purchased out of the money arising from delinquents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The concealed weapons permits we started issuing in 1987 are the problem?

 

People generally conceal handguns, so the problem should be particularly severe and increasing with respect to handguns. Let's see what the FDLE says about that...

(snipped: FDLE chart for the hundreth time)

 

Oh. Decreasing. Like our murder rate. PANIC!

 

 

That's dishonest propaganda, Tom. Cancel the victory lap.

Florida rates near the bottom of the barrel. The back third of the fleet, O Badgeless One.

 

It's a test tube for NRA policy, basically. It gets dirtbag results.

Your Florida got international coverage for SYG...and by that, gave international disgrace to our country.

 

 

The facts:

The 2008 numbers had Florida as 17th from the bottom in our nation for gun homicides.

Florida has 12.87gun murders/100K. The national average is 10.85.

Your gun deaths are significantly (20%) above the national average.

http://www.vpc.org/fadeathchart11.htm>

aa%20gun%20violence%20rankings%2050%20st

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<_< , and this from a criminal (overwhelming approved by voters)

 

 

jocal,, that brit 303 of yours is NOT up to standards of todays Minutemen.

 

We both know that you can't even transfer it to somebody with a bandsaw,

, so you are going to have to destroy it the hard way.

 

It IS legal to go into a hardware store & buy a hacksaw.

You will need to buy some really good blades to get through the high alloy steels used in the .303

 

Your shoulder is still going to get really tired

 

 

 

 

 

( Your local Minutemen will decide how much to fine you for your delinquencies.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If you call the militia to service, would you hope they came with Dick Heller's 9 round .22 caliber revolver (which we already know is protected) or an AR-15? I think an AR-15 is the obvious answer.

 

I answered your question, and I resent that you did not assimilate the answer. See the first words in Post 16.

I repeat: take whatever weapon, but hear me clearly, it will be regulated, per Heller.

 

But if "whatever weapon" is an AR and I live in Highland Park, there's a little problem. This thread is about that little problem.

 

Regulated meant well trained back then. It means regulated now. It doesn't mean banned.

 

If you succeed in your goal of confiscating 10% of the guns in America and preventing any more "assault" weapons from being sold, your answer to my question makes no sense. It's no longer legally possible, so there's only one answer.

 

I can only conclude that you think a .22 revolver is a more appropriate militia weapon than an AR. I disagree.

Whew! What are you going on about?

 

 

The fact that there's only one legal choice in your "whatever weapon" answer.

 

If you succeed in confiscating all the AR's and other assault weapons nationwide, your "move to Florida" answer won't suffice. That's part of the reason the 14th amendment applies federal protection of certain rights to the states.

 

 

You present a lot of 'ifs". IF you are called up by the militia has a very low probability.

So does getting AW's banned in fifty states.

 

WILD IMAGININGS

You are wanking away at militia behaviors, militia gun choices, militia ammo supply, where to store one's anti-tyranny gun...yet the core purpose of the second was supposed to be about home self-defense...and the second A about individual rights.

BTW why are individual rights barely discussed by the founding fathers?

 

I see AW gun wanking over wild fantasies of militia activity, and note seditious, immature trains of thought.

I hear no acknowledgement of the authority structure of Madison's militia (or yours).

And I hear no sound gun policy for the USA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The fact that there's only one legal choice in your "whatever weapon" answer.

 

If you succeed in confiscating all the AR's and other assault weapons nationwide, your "move to Florida" answer won't suffice. That's part of the reason the 14th amendment applies federal protection of certain rights to the states.

 

 

You present a lot of 'ifs". IF you are called up by the militia has a very low probability.

So does getting AW's banned in fifty states.

...

 

Low probability events still happen and they are, after all, your goals. so let's talk about them.

 

The Constitution is not a set of rules for this week or this year. It's supposed to be forever. You know how long a time that is? Over that span of time, governments fail and fall, natural disasters occur, invasions happen, all kinds of things we might not anticipate. Unlikely things. Things that might make a person want a gun.

 

The fact that you have little chance of success in confiscating the 10% of US guns that are called "assault" weapons doesn't mean we can't discuss your goals and whether they make sense over the long span of time, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the majority opinion:

 

Highland Park contends that the ordinance must be valid because weapons with large‐capacity magazines are “dangerous and unusual” as Heller used that phrase. Yet Highland Park concedes uncertainty whether the banned weapons are commonly owned; if they are (or were before it enacted the ordinance), then they are not unusual. The record shows that perhaps 9% of the nation’s firearms owners have assault weapons, but what line separates “common” from “uncommon” ownership is something the Court did not say.

 

 

And the dissent:

 

Here, the evidentiary record is unequivocal: a statistically significant amount of gun owners such as Friedman use semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines for lawful purposes.

Footnote 3:
Insofar as the evidentiary record addresses the matter, it supports the 3 proposition that AR-rifles are commonly used by law-abiding citizens. Out of 57 million firearm owners in the United States, it is estimated that 5 million own AR-type rifles. ... Firearm industry analysts estimate that 5,128,000 AR-type rifles were produced in the United States for domestic sale, while an additional 3,415,000 were imported. ... Between 2008 and 2012, approximately 11.4% of firearms manufactured in the United States were AR-type rifles. A survey of randomly selected United States residents demonstrated that an estimated 11,976,702 million persons participated in target shooting with an AR-type rifle in 2012. .... The evidentiary record contains no entries disputing these estimates.

 

 

If these are accurate, we're talking about roughly 30 million guns owned by 5 million people and enjoyed by almost 7 million more.

 

Oddly enough, those numbers don't include me. I don't own one and didn't shoot one in 2012 as far as I can recall.

 

But if those things are how judges are going to determine whether a weapon is protected, I feel it's my civic duty to go buy a mean-looking rifle, even though I really don't want one. I'd rather get another fishing rod, but no one is trying to take away my ability to do that.

 

I always figured I'd buy one in a private sale, since those are the scariest. But to get credit for it with future judges, I'm thinking I'd better go to a store. Or maybe I need to acquire two...

 

One way or another, I think I should do my part to boost the number of "assault" weapons in circulation and get the number of owners up from 9 to 10%.

 

Speaking of unusual activities, about 10% of boats sold are sailboats. So they really don't need to make bridges tall nor channels deep just for a handful of people engaged in unusual activities, I suppose...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always pick up a couple of stripped lower receivers, and still get credit for owning a scary rifle since the receiver is the firearm. You can find receivers for $50 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could always pick up a couple of stripped lower receivers, and still get credit for owning a scary rifle since the receiver is the firearm. You can find receivers for $50 now.

 

I suppose. I'm not sure how to get judicial credit for target shooting. I can't just lie to the survey taker! There should be some shots in the background for emphasis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You could always pick up a couple of stripped lower receivers, and still get credit for owning a scary rifle since the receiver is the firearm. You can find receivers for $50 now.

I suppose. I'm not sure how to get judicial credit for target shooting. I can't just lie to the survey taker! There should be some shots in the background for emphasis.

 

:) That's one of the really cool things about a modern Minuteman's rifal.

 

It is entirely ACCEPTABLE to use your required Militia Weapon to brutally murder some random Disney creature.

 

& CAN use the poor creatures bloody head as proof for the survey taker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You could always pick up a couple of stripped lower receivers, and still get credit for owning a scary rifle since the receiver is the firearm. You can find receivers for $50 now.

I suppose. I'm not sure how to get judicial credit for target shooting. I can't just lie to the survey taker! There should be some shots in the background for emphasis.

 

:) That's one of the really cool things about a modern Minuteman's rifal.

 

It is entirely ACCEPTABLE to use your required Militia Weapon to brutally murder some random Disney creature.

 

& CAN use the poor creatures bloody head as proof for the survey taker.

 

 

Alas, we are prohibited from using our modern Minuteman's rifle to murder Disney creatures here in PA. Instead, we must only use old fashioned Minuteman rifles for that task, although there is hope that might be resolved this legislative session. What better rifle to hunt bear with than my Minuteman rifle chambered in .50 Beowulf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't think I'd want the recruits to bring their own, imagine the headache of all the different ammos, spare parts, etc.

 

Better to issue common ones from the armory.

 

But then an armory sort of defeats the notion of "Keep and bear". You certainly can't be "keeping" arms if they are locked up in the armory and only issued when the gov't wants you to have them. That is the antithesis of the 2A - the 2A was designed such that the gov't could not prevent you from taking up arms if necessary.

 

I might not have been clear.

 

I have no issue with individuals owning weapons.

 

However, for the militia to be effective, the members need common caliber weapons, and maybe some training.

 

Own all the guns you want, but like the Nat Guard, Militia weapons will need to be provided.

 

Imagine the brouhaha if y'all decided that it was 5.56 vs 7.62

 

crikey - all those Northern Deer hunters would rebel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Militia weapons will need to be provided.

 

Imagine the brouhaha if y'all decided that it was 5.56 vs 7.62

 

crikey - all those Northern Deer hunters would rebel.

 

 

There are really only a few relevant calibers. Either of the above would be preferable to a .22 revolver, which we already know is protected.

 

As for who should supply militia weapons, see US v Miller

 

...these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

 

 

To reverse that intent because you doubt people could figure out to get common calibers is historically ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are attributing a motivation to me I don't have.

 

My motivation is efficiency of the Miliita.

 

It would be a very ineffective fighting force if you can't even determine what ammo to stockpile.

 

Does that mean Joe Smith couldn't show up with his .300? I suppose he could, but there might not be ammo available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are attributing a motivation to me I don't have.

 

My motivation is efficiency of the Miliita.

 

It would be a very ineffective fighting force if you can't even determine what ammo to stockpile.

 

Does that mean Joe Smith couldn't show up with his .300? I suppose he could, but there might not be ammo available.

 

What it meant in the past was that militia regulations could dictate what caliber of weapon you showed up with.

 

I'm not sure why you think it now means you must show up and be given something of the proper caliber. The problem has been addressed before without depriving people of their guns and could be again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're tieing 2 things together that I'm not.

 

I don't tie the 2nd with either militia or home defense. It just is a personal right to arms.

 

Now - if we want to debate how to make a militia most effective, I would say common arms would be a part. Training. Organization. All that would be required.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're tieing 2 things together that I'm not.

 

I don't tie the 2nd with either militia or home defense. It just is a personal right to arms.

 

Now - if we want to debate how to make a militia most effective, I would say common arms would be a part. Training. Organization. All that would be required.

 

You may not, but courts do. They look at the purpose behind a right when analyzing it.

 

I'm interested to see how your approach works. Confronted with a question like the topic one: whether a guy can have an AR-15, what would "just a personal right to arms" say?

 

Common arms have always been a part, but have never meant the government must own and issue the arms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i don't see any legit reason to regulate an AR-15 out of existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you're tieing 2 things together that I'm not.

 

I don't tie the 2nd with either militia or home defense. It just is a personal right to arms.

 

Now - if we want to debate how to make a militia most effective, I would say common arms would be a part. Training. Organization. All that would be required.

 

Training and organization, of course, fall under "well regulated"...unless someone is twisting semantics.

The "organization", according to Madison and Hamilton, involved the governor appointing militia officers.

Tom has no comment on the bombshell that, in Federalist articles, higher authority was to manage individual guns (if ever needed to fight tyrants).

 

Lone SAF super-hero's with AW's, fighting tyrants? I haven't found that in the Federalist Papers.

 

 

I am interested in all this in-depth, detailed wanking about the U.S. militia, and their arms, in 2015. You guys defend quite a few power fantasies with your guns. You are geared up to fight criminals, multiple armed home invaders, rioters, and tyrants too. Each sounds a little fishy. Each speaks of insecurity.

 

Your (pl) relish for the militia angle (while failing to discuss militia authority over POSSE COMITATUS) is scary, cultish, and sur-real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you're tieing 2 things together that I'm not.

 

I don't tie the 2nd with either militia or home defense. It just is a personal right to arms.

 

Now - if we want to debate how to make a militia most effective, I would say common arms would be a part. Training. Organization. All that would be required.

 

You may not, but courts do. They look at the purpose behind a right when analyzing it.

 

I'm interested to see how your approach works. Confronted with a question like the topic one: whether a guy can have an AR-15, what would "just a personal right to arms" say?

 

Common arms have always been a part, but have never meant the government must own and issue the arms.

 

 

What's "common" about assault weapons?

If this is a new normal, that is a problem in and of itself.

aa%20AW%20FARC-3-1986_zpsxvvfgyz7.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal, the newer ones are even better than that. If your digestive system ever gets stopped up, I can post some pictures of my collection and you will shit yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not sure I can define AW. If you can define Assault Weapon in a way that keeps it in it's own bucket, you'd have a chance in regulating it. Damn things have the same function as my now 40 year old Remington model 742 .308. they both throw lead with efficiency, and I would guess my old .308 might even have more accuracy. It will also throw lead as fast as my finger can pull the trigger. I suppose I should get with the times and call it a 7.62. I don't know if standard 7.62 ammo would fit in my old .308. It might, then again, might not.

 

I think the militia angle is a quaint reflection on the US's past, but it's there. To think otherwise would be to have your head in the sand. I think the Nat Guard is the most effective "militia" we have, folks like the guys at Bundy's ranch are the scary side.

 

I doubt that I could just show up in case of an emergency - say the Big One hits the East Bay with a 8.5 mag quake - with a rifle over my shoulder, saying I'm here to help keep the peace, but I won't stop anyone else from having that fantasy.

 

 

Keep the nutters from getting weapons, provide security for schools, lock up parents whose kids die with unattended guns, and then live with the reduced risk of death by lead poisoning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The "organization", according to Madison and Hamilton, involved the governor appointing militia officers.

Tom has no comment on the bombshell that, in Federalist articles, higher authority was to manage individual guns (if ever needed to fight tyrants).

 

 

Can't comment on things that aren't there. Officers manage individuals. Individuals manage their own guns.

 

 

i don't see any legit reason to regulate an AR-15 out of existence.

 

How about grenades? They're arms. Does your personal right address them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you baiting me, now I remember why these gun threads suck ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you baiting me, now I remember why these gun threads suck ass.

 

Tom has to force the conversation into his practiced tangents.

This fills out the echo chamber.

O.R., at least it isn't race-baiting. Pages of it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The "organization", according to Madison and Hamilton, involved the governor appointing militia officers.

Tom has no comment on the bombshell that, in Federalist articles, higher authority was to manage individual guns (if ever needed to fight tyrants).

 

 

 

Can't comment on things that aren't there.

 

You are dodging, mis-quoting, lying...and being lame.

State authority over citizen response (and inspection and approval of their weapons, presumably) IS there, in both Federalist 29 and 46. I bolded it above.

Pay attention, Dodger my man, because it's all over the place:

 

From Wiki, Federalist 29: "In the end, Hamilton concludes that the militia, as it is constituted directly of the people and managed by the states, is not a danger to liberty when called into use by other states to do things such as quell insurrections."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29>

Four references from Federalist 46.

1....it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.

 

2.(...) officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
3.the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition...
4.And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all this talk of 'Militia', kinda like a pirate movie. 'Thar be dragons ...'

 

Tom, seriously, can you imagine what would happen if a groups of concerned citizens took up arms to defend themselves against the Tyrant government? Is this clear and rational thinking?

 

So what is the worth of leaning on these old concepts. Seems more a sign that either the law is being misinterpreted or it is just dated, or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like all this talk of 'Militia', kinda like a pirate movie. 'Thar be dragons ...'

 

Tom, seriously, can you imagine what would happen if a groups of concerned citizens took up arms to defend themselves against the Tyrant government? Is this clear and rational thinking?

 

So what is the worth of leaning on these old concepts. Seems more a sign that either the law is being misinterpreted or it is just dated, or both.

 

They seem to be frothing at the mouth to participate in a militia, a train which left the station long ago. WTF?.

They have every angle thought out, and justified (except the authority over them, the State).

Next, they hitch this preposterous, unlikely posse comitatus activity to the need for assault weapons...on a national scale.

Why fight tyrants with your six-gun, etc. (Something about the fourteenth amendment justifies AW's this time.)

 

They are all about the constitution, but whoops, they forgot about voting.

They sound like kooks and dumbasses. It's laughable.

 

 

...if a groups of concerned citizens took up arms to defend themselves against the Tyrant government?

 

That just happened, at Bundyville. The gun mentality sedition angle is not appealing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Waco? Was it Waco where some people thought they had a case to defend themselves from Tyrants?

 

That is what would happen to Militia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

 

Tom, seriously, can you imagine what would happen if a groups of concerned citizens took up arms to defend themselves against the Tyrant government? Is this clear and rational thinking?

 

So what is the worth of leaning on these old concepts. Seems more a sign that either the law is being misinterpreted or it is just dated, or both.

 

I don't have to imagine a natural disaster temporarily disabling government. I have experienced it. A major solar flare would be far worse than anything anyone alive has experienced.

 

I can't imagine what life might be like in 200 years. Tyrannical government? Invasion? Collapse of the government? I can imagine a lot of things that might occur and that would leave people needing to defend themselves and/or preserve order in cooperation with others.

 

The law is dated. If everyone agrees that our government will last forever, will never fail nor be subject to invasion, will never be crippled by natural disasters, or will otherwise never leave people needing to defend themselves, we can amend it. Fortunately, people understand that those things do happen so amendment is unlikely.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why are you baiting me, now I remember why these gun threads suck ass.

 

Just asking you to think about your position. A right without a purpose such as you suggest is hard to evaluate as to its limits.

 

Why should an AR be protected? And what kinds of things should not be? Full auto's? Courts answer those questions by weighing compelling governmental interests against the ability of citizens to fulfill the purpose of the protected right. "Just a personal right to arms" is hard to evaluate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I suggest a right with a purpose? Quit playing with words.

When did I suggest a right with a purpose? Quit playing with words.

When did I suggest a right with a purpose? Quit playing with words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

...the core purpose of the second was supposed to be about home self-defense...

 

No, that's the Brady Center's idea, taken from an incorrect reading of the Heller case, and it leads to the conclusion that we had indoor militias.

 

We did not. They were mostly an outdoor thing. The fact that Dick Heller's case was ONLY about possessing a gun in his home does not mean that the second amendment is ONLY about that subject, much as the Brady Bunch might want that to be true.

 

Geez, read the majority opinion in the topic case. They didn't get much right, but at least got that right.

 

Indoor militias again. Sheesh.

Tom, don't you ever get tired of clubbing baby seals?? The 1st thousand or so is fun, but after that it just feels like work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got two words for you Tom .. "Wa . Co". That's what happens when citizens take up arms to defend themselves. Do you remember how that went?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got two words for you Tom .. "Wa . Co". That's what happens when citizens take up arms to defend themselves. Do you remember how that went?

 

Yes, I do. The ATF was preparing for a budget hearing in front of Congress and needed a big bust, so they staged a raid on a weirdo who they could have easily confronted in town or in a less dangerous way.

 

Because publicity was important, they tipped off reporters, who tipped off the nutz.

 

When the publicity stunt started, the victims were ready and shot back as the government agents started firing. The front door, which would have proven this, mysteriously disappeared.

 

The FLIR footage proving that the government lied about using tanks and automatic weapons was not disappeared, so we know about those lies.

 

There was no reason to launch that raid and no reason to burn those people up. There were reasons to lie and cover up, so that's what the government did.

 

But a botched publicity stunt raid by a functioning (more or less) government is really nothing like the complete failure of a government, nor is it like invasion or natural disaster.

 

The USSR was a superpower that seemed pretty permanent just a few years before it ceased to exist. When the end came, the people with guns decided what came next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I suggest a right with a purpose? Quit playing with words.

When did I suggest a right with a purpose? Quit playing with words.

When did I suggest a right with a purpose? Quit playing with words.

 

You didn't. You suggested the very first one without a purpose. That makes it impossible to analyze and determine what is or is not protected.

 

Why should an AR be protected under your "just a right" theory? If there are any arms that should not be protected, why?

 

You need a purpose to answer the question. A right that might protect anything might also protect nothing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites