What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Circe]

[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.

No.....since they weren't science fiction writers, they couldn't guess and so the point you are trying to make is moot. However, you make me think about Heller --- I see that Scalia is edging toward a general protection of weapons that were NORMAL in those days. That is, army units might have used cannon then on occasion, but that is never considered as covered by the Second. Normal weapons were those used on farms and in homes, and certainly "normal" weapons are what the Second covers. Not really exotic weapons.

I think he's headed in that direction: that the Second protects ownership of "normal" weapons as it did in 1790, the modern equivalent. But not necessarily exotic or unusual weapons that would not normally be used in a home or on a farm, like high-capacity magazines, grenades, machine guns, and so on.

So I guess my answer to your question is that I think the FFs did intend to limit protected arms to normal arms commonly carried for common uses. For instance, I bet bayonets are not protected, though they may well have had them in the infantry at that time. I don't know for sure.

 

[Spoonman]

[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.

No.....since they weren't science fiction writers, they couldn't guess and so the point you are trying to make is moot. However, you make me think about Heller --- I see that Scalia is edging toward a general protection of weapons that were NORMAL in those days. That is, army units might have used cannon then on occasion, but that is never considered as covered by the Second. Normal weapons were those used on farms and in homes, and certainly "normal" weapons are what the Second covers. Not really exotic weapons.

I think he's headed in that direction: that the Second protects ownership of "normal" weapons as it did in 1790, the modern equivalent. But not necessarily exotic or unusual weapons that would not normally be used in a home or on a farm, like high-capacity magazines, grenades, machine guns, and so on.

So I guess my answer to your question is that I think the FFs did intend to limit protected arms to normal arms commonly carried for common uses. For instance, I bet bayonets are not protected, though they may well have had them in the infantry at that time. I don't know for sure.

so you have just put a whole lot of words into the FF mouths that they never said. the second amendment mentions no limitations. none at all. in fact it is very specific in stating that there shall be no infringement. no infringement means just that - no infringment. had they wanted limitations they would have included limitations. they would have at the very least specified what was allowed.

Madison, who wrote the second amendment and submitted it to congress was very clear of his intent. and this is what madison said about the second amendment -
"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."

the second amendment didn't exclude canons did it? they were available at the time.

you mentioned the machine gun in an earlier post. where you aware the machine gun was invented in england in like 1718? well before the 2nd amendment. the FF knew of the technology. were you aware that prior to writing the second amendment the continental congress had an order for 100 rapid file rifles. rifles that shot 20 rounds in 5 seconds, as fast or faster than possible with an AR 15 and it used a high capacity 20 round magazine to do so? that same continental congress that contained what we refer to as the founding fathers were fully aware of advanced technology. They clearly saw the future of weaponry and had given specific direction in its advancement. but they were specific in not including any limitations in their legislation.

 

[OODA_Loop]

[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.

In 2011

323 died from all types of rifles

728 died from hands, fist, and/or feet

 

[rdean]

If you can carry it, you can own it.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you can carry it, you can own it.

Not really.

 

[Circe]

you mentioned the machine gun in an earlier post. where you aware the machine gun was invented in england in like 1718? well before the 2nd amendment. the FF knew of the technology. were you aware that prior to writing the second amendment the continental congress had an order for 100 rapid file rifles. rifles that shot 20 rounds in 5 seconds, as fast or faster than possible with an AR 15 and it used a high capacity 20 round magazine to do so? that same continental congress that contained what we refer to as the founding fathers were fully aware of advanced technology. They clearly saw the future of weaponry and had given specific direction in its advancement. but they were specific in not including any limitations in their legislation.

No, this is bogus. I am something of a student of World War I and the Gatling gun was first used in the Civil War and then the whole point of WWI is that the carnage possible with the new machine guns changed the entire nature of warfare and made that war one of entrenchments on every front, the first time (and the last time) that ever happened. I see that your thrust is to pretend that all modern weaponry was already well known and thus was accounted for in the Second Amendment, but that isn't the case. We'll have to deal with reality: what we have now is very, very different weapons and different societal circumstances than were the case in 1789.

That doesn't mean you can't be generally right, that the Second permits ANYthing, that is what we are arguing about. But there is no use taking the tack that the FFs were sci-fi fans. Scalia takes no interest in that argument either. We have to deal with change, or at least incorporate it: major societal change is what this is all about.

so you have just put a whole lot of words into the FF mouths that they never said. the second amendment mentions no limitations. none at all. in fact it is very specific in stating that there shall be no infringement. no infringement means just that - no infringment. had they wanted limitations they would have included limitations. they would have at the very least specified what was allowed.

Madison, who wrote the second amendment and submitted it to congress was very clear of his intent. and this is what madison said about the second amendment -
"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."

the second amendment didn't exclude canons did it? they were available at the time.

I agree with you! I'm worried about cannons, and sure ---- no limitations. That 1939 ban on machine guns....that's very dubious, but what if we didn't have that ban? My personal favorite is the grenade, which I notice no one is willing to talk about. I simply do not see how the Second excludes grenades!! Well, it doesn't, not by any interpretation that includes arms normally used by infantry.

And -- If you are willing to talk about cannon, how about other group weapons such as heavy artillery and drones and biological weapons and chemicals like they are so worried about in Syria now? America is the best in the world with chemical and biological weapons: a thousand college labs could make them. Should they also be freely available under the Second Amendment?

Could we please talk about grenades? Are you all okay with having grenades sold at every Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmarts, and if so, why?

 

[Circe]

If you can carry it, you can own it.

Not really.

Well, why not? rdean makes a good concise summary of one thrust of Scalia's thinking, that the Second refers to what infantry would normally carry. Individually. Which supposedly excludes cannon and other group weapons.

Personally, I don't see that. I think everyone's favorite Scholastic has better arguments than that.

But given the argument, that any weapon anyone can carry is fair under the Second, WHY NOT, OODA?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Though none of these challenges have been heard and upheld by the SCotUS.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

The "technology of 1791" argument is unsound - the 2nd protects weapons in common use at the time, and so any reference to muskets automatically fails.

Never mind that in and around 1791 both grenades and short-barreled showtguns saw military service

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is absolutely unsupportable - 'assault weapoms' are -rarely- used in crime.

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.

The law passed in 1934, and it did not ban machineguns.

I am particularly interested in the grenade issue: CLEARLY grenades are a normal military infantry weapon today, and yet are illegal...

They are not. They fall under the same law as machineguns, are classifued as "destructive devices", and are not banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

They could imagine assault rifles far more easily than cable news, cell phones and the internet.
Yet, the Constitution still covers these things.
Hmm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[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.

No.....since they weren't science fiction writers, they couldn't guess...

If any of them saw an M16, it would take then 10 seconds or less to figure out what it was and what it does.
Cell phones? the internet? They'd have no clue.

I see that Scalia is edging toward a general protection of weapons that were NORMAL in those days...

No. Common use at the time, as the term is used in Miller.
You'll have to read Miller.

 

[M14 Shooter]

you mentioned the machine gun in an earlier post. where you aware the machine gun was invented in england in like 1718? well before the 2nd amendment. the FF knew of the technology. were you aware that prior to writing the second amendment the continental congress had an order for 100 rapid file rifles. rifles that shot 20 rounds in 5 seconds, as fast or faster than possible with an AR 15 and it used a high capacity 20 round magazine to do so? that same continental congress that contained what we refer to as the founding fathers were fully aware of advanced technology. They clearly saw the future of weaponry and had given specific direction in its advancement. but they were specific in not including any limitations in their legislation.

No, this is bogus. I am something of a student of World War I and the Gatling gun was first used in the Civil War and then the whole point of WWI is that the carnage possible with the new machine guns changed the entire nature of warfare and made that war one of entrenchments on every front, the first time (and the last time) that ever happened. I see that your thrust is to pretend that all modern weaponry was already well known and thus was accounted for in the Second Amendment, but that isn't the case. We'll have to deal with reality: what we have now is very, very different weapons and different societal circumstances than were the case in 1789.

But not in 1939 when the SCotUS heard and ruled on Miller.
The court said that to be protected by the 2nd a weapon had to be effective for service in the militia, and be part of the ordinary military equipment in common unse of the time.
This covers all classes of firearms.

 

[eflatminor]

Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted the invention of grenades

Grenades existed well before the 1700s. Grenades first came into use around the 15th century.

sawed-off shotguns,

So did short barreled shotguns. They we called a blunderbuss, an EXTREMELY effective close range weapon.

machine guns,

Actually, the first machine gun was invented by James Puckle in 1718. Who knew???

or assault rifles

Military weapons? Sure they had 'em.

and high-capacity ammo magazines.

No, but they had weapon designed to kill multiple victims at once, so what's the difference? A double barrel close quarters firearm from the 1700s is a DEVASTATING weapon, even today.

In those days military weapons were the same as private firearms

Which is exactly the point of the 2nd amendment. Thanks for proving the point.

Weaponry has become far, far more dangerous.

Yet more Americans died during the Civil War, over 150 years ago, than any other. Heck, in Rwanda, they didn't even need firearms to kill half a million people.

It would appear weapons have always been dangerous.

Also the people have become far more dangerous: who in 1790 could have predicted the sewers of violent crime...

The first well documented case of mass murder took place on February 3, 1780 in Connecticut, when the Mallory family was killed in their beds by 19-year-old Barnett Davenport, a sociopath farmhand and boarder.

Sorry, but your "modern times" argument for gun control does not hold water.

 

[Underhill]

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.

They could imagine assault rifles far more easily than cable news, cell phones and the internet.
Yet, the Constitution still covers these things.
Hmm.

It can cover broad concepts.

But "arms" as described in the constitution is a bit different.

Saying, "you have the right to arm yourself as you see fit" in 1790 means a very specific thing.

Saying that today could mean anything from chemical and biological weapons, explosives, nukes, tanks, guided missiles, machine guns and much more.

Free speech in 1790 means exactly what it does today, only the number of people you can talk to has changed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

They could imagine assault rifles far more easily than cable news, cell phones and the internet.
Yet, the Constitution still covers these things.
Hmm.

It can cover broad concepts.
But "arms" as described in the constitution is a bit different.

How does one retain a well-regulated militia, intended to assist or resist the standing army as necessary, with the weaponry available in 1790?

You don't. This is why the SCotUS ruled as it did in Miller and Heller, in that the 2nd protects weapons available today, whenever today may be.

The musket argument is dead; it is argued only by people who know no better.

 

[OODA_Loop]

If you can carry it, you can own it.

Not really.

Well, why not? rdean makes a good concise summary of one thrust of Scalia's thinking, that the Second refers to what infantry would normally carry. Individually. Which supposedly excludes cannon and other group weapons.

Personally, I don't see that. I think everyone's favorite Scholastic has better arguments than that.

But given the argument, that any weapon anyone can carry is fair under the Second, WHY NOT, OODA?

A grenade is an explosive.

No right to bear explosives.

 

[OODA_Loop]

They are not. They fall under the same law as machineguns, are classifued as "destructive devices", and are not banned.

You can apply for a DD transfer w/ NFA Branch but there is no protected right to grant the transfer.

 

[Spoonman]

you mentioned the machine gun in an earlier post. where you aware the machine gun was invented in england in like 1718? well before the 2nd amendment. the FF knew of the technology. were you aware that prior to writing the second amendment the continental congress had an order for 100 rapid file rifles. rifles that shot 20 rounds in 5 seconds, as fast or faster than possible with an AR 15 and it used a high capacity 20 round magazine to do so? that same continental congress that contained what we refer to as the founding fathers were fully aware of advanced technology. They clearly saw the future of weaponry and had given specific direction in its advancement. but they were specific in not including any limitations in their legislation.

No, this is bogus. I am something of a student of World War I and the Gatling gun was first used in the Civil War and then the whole point of WWI is that the carnage possible with the new machine guns changed the entire nature of warfare and made that war one of entrenchments on every front, the first time (and the last time) that ever happened. I see that your thrust is to pretend that all modern weaponry was already well known and thus was accounted for in the Second Amendment, but that isn't the case. We'll have to deal with reality: what we have now is very, very different weapons and different societal circumstances than were the case in 1789.

That doesn't mean you can't be generally right, that the Second permits ANYthing, that is what we are arguing about. But there is no use taking the tack that the FFs were sci-fi fans. Scalia takes no interest in that argument either. We have to deal with change, or at least incorporate it: major societal change is what this is all about.

so you have just put a whole lot of words into the FF mouths that they never said. the second amendment mentions no limitations. none at all. in fact it is very specific in stating that there shall be no infringement. no infringement means just that - no infringment. had they wanted limitations they would have included limitations. they would have at the very least specified what was allowed.

Madison, who wrote the second amendment and submitted it to congress was very clear of his intent. and this is what madison said about the second amendment -
"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."

the second amendment didn't exclude canons did it? they were available at the time.

I agree with you! I'm worried about cannons, and sure ---- no limitations. That 1939 ban on machine guns....that's very dubious, but what if we didn't have that ban? My personal favorite is the grenade, which I notice no one is willing to talk about. I simply do not see how the Second excludes grenades!! Well, it doesn't, not by any interpretation that includes arms normally used by infantry.

And -- If you are willing to talk about cannon, how about other group weapons such as heavy artillery and drones and biological weapons and chemicals like they are so worried about in Syria now? America is the best in the world with chemical and biological weapons: a thousand college labs could make them. Should they also be freely available under the Second Amendment?

Could we please talk about grenades? Are you all okay with having grenades sold at every Dick's Sporting Goods and Walmarts, and if so, why?

well you need to go back a little further in history because the machine gun was inventer in 1718 in england. look it up. and if you want to see what the founding fathers where really aware of read the journals of the continental congress. pay some particular attention to 1777. read the franklin papers too. they knew weaponry was well advanced passed a simple musket. they were even putting in requests to develop experimental technologies. a gun existed that could fire bullets as fast as todays ar-15.

all these things you are worried about people having are already illegal. yet they have them. and who has them? people who intend to do harm with them. so the laws have done what exactly?

 

[Circe]

Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted the invention of grenades

Grenades existed well before the 1700s. Grenades first came into use around the 15th century.

sawed-off shotguns,

So did short barreled shotguns. They we called a blunderbuss, an EXTREMELY effective close range weapon.



Actually, the first machine gun was invented by James Puckle in 1718. Who knew???



Military weapons? Sure they had 'em.



No, but they had weapon designed to kill multiple victims at once, so what's the difference? A double barrel close quarters firearm from the 1700s is a DEVASTATING weapon, even today.



Which is exactly the point of the 2nd amendment. Thanks for proving the point.

Weaponry has become far, far more dangerous.

Yet more Americans died during the Civil War, over 150 years ago, than any other. Heck, in Rwanda, they didn't even need firearms to kill half a million people.

It would appear weapons have always been dangerous.

Also the people have become far more dangerous: who in 1790 could have predicted the sewers of violent crime...

The first well documented case of mass murder took place on February 3, 1780 in Connecticut, when the Mallory family was killed in their beds by 19-year-old Barnett Davenport, a sociopath farmhand and boarder.

Sorry, but your "modern times" argument for gun control does not hold water.

Who are you arguing with? It can't be me, since I substantially agree with your points as should be evident from all I've written! I expect you are one of these people looking for an enemy and you will take on anybody you can find, particularly a woman, of course.


Hello, I am SAYING that I think grenades and sawed-off shotguns and machine guns are probably covered under the Second Amendment!!!!! I've said it over and over. If you aren't paying any attention to what I say, I question what usefulness your remarks have in the discussion.

If you are simply looking for somebody to fight with, and are hoping that because I am female that makes me a "liberal" to destroy, I suggest you try M14, since he's off my radar because of name-calling and won't interfere with my conversation, at any rate.

Grenades, machine guns, shoulder-fire rocket launchers (that's a particularly nice one, that certainly should be covered under the Second, and would be very useful for crazies living near airports), sawed-off shotguns, the blunderbuss on your wall, machine guns, small mortars ---- how did those all get to be illegal?

It is plain to me from reading Heller that Scalia wants to straighten out what has certainly become a morass of confusion and basically unconstitutional laws during a time of considerable public danger from crazies and terrorists and criminals. I don't know how he means to do this; he is signaling that he wants to rationalize it, though.