What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Spoonman]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

 

[eflatminor]

The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time

Correct. About time we put a stop to it.

 

[martybegan]

There is no constitutional limit to owning firearms. Case law is another travesty entirely.

No, nor is there a constitutional limit to free speech or religion: but the government has indeed made laws that do infringe all of those. Is that --- always bad?

You can't falsely yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater just because you love excitement.

Conspiracy among a group of Muslims to blow up subways is not protected speech.

The religious freedom of Mormons to make polygamous marriages was infringed by federal troops in the 1890s. The religious freedom of Mormons to have sex with girl children of 12 was infringed this decade.

There's a whole lotta infringing goin' on --- when is it justifiable?

Where the "Yelling fire" comparison differs is that in that case the person has to take action. They yell "fire", a panic ensues, and they are held liable. We already have criminal law for when people use a firearm in an illegal manner. An equivalent for banning firearms or even a certain type would be gagging the people prior to thier entering the theatre, or only gagging the "scary" looking people (assault yellers?).

Conspiracy again involves an assumed act about to occur, and an illegal act at that through planning and preparation. Discussing the method of blowing something up isnt enough to convict (It might be enough for an arrest just to let them know the authorities know whats what) but discussing details would require aquiring the proper materials to reach a conspiracy conviction.

Regardless of what progressives say there is no "right" to marriage. Loving vs. virgina was against the recontrstuction amendments as it denied a wedding liscense based on race. The denial of any government contract based on race is now unconsitutional, not just marriage.

 

[Spoonman]

while we try to figure out what was really meant by the bill of rights you have ot take a look at what was said regarding these rights in other publications from the period. Now the bll of rights or the amendments as they are referred to were submitted to congress by James Madison. He submitted 12, 10 were quickly ratified, one later. Read othe writings and speeches of madison, especially things like the federalist papers and he was very clear where he stood.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

"Americans need never fear their government
because of the advantage of being armed,
which the Americans possess over the people
of almost every other nation."

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where the "Yelling fire" comparison differs is that in that case the person has to take action. They yell "fire", a panic ensues, and they are held liable.

Yes. This creates a condition of clear, present and immediate danger, and so restrictions against same do not violate the constitution.
Simple posession/ownership of a firearm does not create any such condition.

Conspiracy again involves an assumed act about to occur, and an illegal act at that through planning and preparation. Discussing the method of blowing something up isnt enough to convict (It might be enough for an arrest just to let them know the authorities know whats what) but discussing details would require aquiring the proper materials to reach a conspiracy conviction.

A conviction for conspiracy requires collaberation -and- related action - simple talking about comitting a crime does not break the law.

Regardless of what progressives say there is no "right" to marriage.

Indeed - marriage, as a legal institution, exists only becauise the state created it, and so it is a privilige, one that can be denied by repealing all of the laws that create/recognize it.

 

[editec]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

In 1789?

 

[Spoonman]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

In 1789?

yes, what is wrong with that?

 

[eflatminor]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

In 1789?

Yes. While smooth bore, single shot muskets were most common in that time period, there were firearms capable of firing more than one shot available well before 1789.

 

[Underhill]

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect Americans against Tyrannical Gov't.

Whatever a Tyrannical Gov't can have, it's Citizens should be able to have as well.

I'm willing to bet the Average Citizen would be MORE responsible with a Drone that the US Gov't is.

I find this notion of the US government as tyrannical a bit odd.

We elected these people, like it or not. They pass the laws we want them to pass. They took us into Iraq because we bought into the bullshit. They use the drones because the American people seem to like the idea. They want to regulate guns because the people want it.

So where is the tyranny? We've got the government we voted for. When have we ever had any different?

 

[OODA_Loop]

I find this notion of the US government as tyrannical a bit odd.

So where is the tyranny? We've got the government we voted for. When have we ever had any different?

If history is an indicator.

Texas secedes. Federal authority ups the tyrannical ante.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

We know that weapons ‘in common use at the time’ may not be banned, and from Heller we know this included handguns. Also from Heller we know that weapons deemed ‘dangerous and unusual’ may be banned, such as a sawed-off shotgun. Recently the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois ban on carrying a weapon in public is also un-Constitutional.

Otherwise most everything else has survived a Constitutional challenge, including licensing, permit, and registration requirements.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Individual right to bear arms in common use apart from connected militia service.

Gun laws need to be geared to stopping criminals not the law abiding.

Good point, that if there is a government interest, surely it should be in stopping criminals shooting with them, not law-abiding people owning them.

I see you are divorcing the individual right to bear arms FROM the militia service: the WSJ article did that, too, carefully quoting only the "shall not infringe" part of the Amendment and leaving off the militia part: I wondered why they did that. I gather that's an issue these days, whether citizens can properly own guns if they aren't part of an organized militia, whatever that is? (There aren't any militias, except semi-terrorist private groups and Army-associated National Guards, I think, so that's a problem too.)

Actually not.

The Heller Court held that the individual right to own a firearm is unconnected to militia service.

 

[Circe]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

That's not quite fair, is it? Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted the invention of grenades, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, or assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines. In those days military weapons were the same as private firearms, and often supplied by the soldier himself.

Many things have changed! Weaponry has become far, far more dangerous. Also the people have become far more dangerous: who in 1790 could have predicted the sewers of violent crime that our urban centers have become, like Los Angeles?

 

[Circe]

Where the "Yelling fire" comparison differs is that in that case the person has to take action. They yell "fire", a panic ensues, and they are held liable. We already have criminal law for when people use a firearm in an illegal manner. An equivalent for banning firearms or even a certain type would be gagging the people prior to thier entering the theatre, or only gagging the "scary" looking people (assault yellers?).

!! I think this is quite good reasoning. It is true that the government does not pre-emptively prevent people from panicking a theater audience -- the law addresses charging such a Fire!-shouter with a crime.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The case law will explain the limits to you.

 

[Spoonman]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

That's not quite fair, is it? Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted the invention of grenades, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, or assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines. In those days military weapons were the same as private firearms, and often supplied by the soldier himself.

Many things have changed! Weaponry has become far, far more dangerous. Also the people have become far more dangerous: who in 1790 could have predicted the sewers of violent crime that our urban centers have become, like Los Angeles?

ok, to your first point, yes the weapons in the hands of a citizen where the same as the military back then. so why shouldn't they be today? today what is allowed is significantly less than what the military has.

to your second point, if they were aware of advanced technology, rapid fire weapons and large capacity magazines and it was their intent not to allow them would they have included that in the second amendment? and if they were aware of it and didn't include it, would you agree their intent was that it should be allowed?

 

[Spoonman]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The case law will explain the limits to you.

not necessarily true, case law is someones interpretation of someone elses meaning. not necessarily the intended meaning. the second amendment was was submitted to congress by james madison. if you read other writings by madison regarding the place of weapons in the hands of citizens his interpretation is quite different from other after the fact interpretations.

 

[Circe]

What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

We know that weapons ‘in common use at the time’ may not be banned, and from Heller we know this included handguns. Also from Heller we know that weapons deemed ‘dangerous and unusual’ may be banned, such as a sawed-off shotgun. Recently the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Illinois ban on carrying a weapon in public is also un-Constitutional.

Heller, which I read from the OODC link on page 1, only touches (rather unsatisfactorily, IMO) on the kinds of weapons that may be banned without infringing the Second Amendment. Scalia says there will be time to sort it all out and that we've just gotten started on it, and long delays (centuries and decades) are common in constitutional issues.

However, he does point out that some statutes ban weapons "commonly used by criminals" -- the sawed-off shotgun ban, for instance. Well, that certainly describes assault rifles! The reason we are all discussing the issue is that assault rifles are most often used by mass murderers shooting up school, malls, theaters, and workplaces: this is exactly the problem.

On the other hand, Scalia also points out that military weapons commonly carried by infantry may be protected, thus casting into some doubt the banning of the machine gun in 1939, an obvious military weapon at that time. Well, that certainly also applies to the assault rifle! The whole point of that weapon is that it looks military and that is the whole reason psychotics use it to mow down dozens of their fellow citizens: it's fashionable, it's cool, and they even costume to match the gun: the common "ninja commando" costume worn especially by young male psychotics on shooting sprees. Reading Heller carefully at that point toward the end of the link, I think Scalia is inviting suits based on particular forms of weaponry that are problematic from public welfare concerns --- weapons particularly useful for mass murder.

I am particularly interested in the grenade issue: CLEARLY grenades are a normal military infantry weapon today, and yet are illegal, and yet of the greatest danger to the public: any crazy could just run down halls throwing grenades in each schoolroom or work area he runs past.

DC law (which is administered by Congress) outlawed all handguns and required that any permitted long gun be disabled, completely nonfunctional at all times, no exceptions for defense. This was struck down. However, it was struck down on the basis of handguns being the normal American self-defense weapon for many years, not an unusual or especially dangerous weapon. It is plain the Court is willing to hear further challenges to the Second Amendment.

 

[Circe]

ok, to your first point, yes the weapons in the hands of a citizen where the same as the military back then. so why shouldn't they be today? today what is allowed is significantly less than what the military has.

I think it's obvious: in those days the guns used normally on a farm were the same as guns used in the infantry to fight the British. Today's military uses weapons that are extremely dangerous for a people with poor control over madmen and very dangerous unruly populations in overcrowded inner cities. Grenades are normal infantry weapons. Suppose they were as legal as handguns? Crazies would be killing hundreds at a whack, every time one broke out. It would change the whole society, people couldn't gather in public places anymore, churches, movies, malls, all too dangerous.

to your second point, if they were aware of advanced technology, rapid fire weapons and large capacity magazines and it was their intent not to allow them would they have included that in the second amendment? and if they were aware of it and didn't include it, would you agree their intent was that it should be allowed?

I don't understand your point here. The Founding Fathers were not aware of our modern assault rifles; they couldn't imagine them. Things were different then, that's all.

 

[Spoonman]

ok, to your first point, yes the weapons in the hands of a citizen where the same as the military back then. so why shouldn't they be today? today what is allowed is significantly less than what the military has.

I think it's obvious: in those days the guns used normally on a farm were the same as guns used in the infantry to fight the British. Today's military uses weapons that are extremely dangerous for a people with poor control over madmen and very dangerous unruly populations in overcrowded inner cities. Grenades are normal infantry weapons. Suppose they were as legal as handguns? Crazies would be killing hundreds at a whack, every time one broke out. It would change the whole society, people couldn't gather in public places anymore, churches, movies, malls, all too dangerous.

to your second point, if they were aware of advanced technology, rapid fire weapons and large capacity magazines and it was their intent not to allow them would they have included that in the second amendment? and if they were aware of it and didn't include it, would you agree their intent was that it should be allowed?

I don't understand your point here. The Founding Fathers were not aware of our modern assault rifles; they couldn't imagine them. Things were different then, that's all.

the point is, they were comfortable with the general public having the same technology as the military.

my point is, had they known and didn't include limitations in the constitution, would you agree their intent was not to limit what a private citizen could own.