What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[M14 Shooter]

The courts interpretation of the Constitution is subject to change. There is no legal reason why a new court could not reach a different decsion than a previous court.

Yes, they -could- arbitrarily overturn the two rulings w/o any sound reason.
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade, for the foreseable future. I consider that this is a very possible, though deplorable thing. I see no reason why liberals should not attempt to do the same, with regard to, what I consider to be, legal precedents that do not reflect commion sense in todays society regarding guns.

You di dnot answer the questions:
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guess anything you can carry or bear is ok by the constitution?

Who said that?
No one?
Straw, man.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I disagree. The best weapon for a mass killing by one crazed individual would be a semi-automatic rifle with lots and lots of ammunition, which is exactly what we tend to see in these incidents.

Either way, it is clearly not illegality that keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals and crazies. Nobody is calling for the repeal of the 1934 Firearms Act, whatever the intellectual arguments against it. That's because machine guns and explosives are not what the good or bad guys (or crazies) demand for the job at hand.

You aren't going to like this...I have an absolutely killer argument, so to speak, against this point of view. It is true that now, here, in the USA, crazies use semiautomatics of various length, which they CAN get, but not grenades or other explosives, which they cannot get, not nearly as easily as they can get the assault rifles and Glocks with big magazines.

However, what do the terrorists use basically all over the world day in and day out? They sure don't use assault rifles...........

They use explosives. Every single day, in Iraqi markets, on the Turkish border with Syria in refugee camps, in Egyptian crowds, thrown at Afghans queuing for jobs, or Afghans sitting in a circle meeting, in Africa, in Tunisia last week, in Israeli restaurants, and on and on. Years and years of explosions to kill groups of people. Because that is by far the best way to kill masses of people if you are going for a high kill rate, and they always are. They mostly make their own explosives, but probably would LOVE to have a few cases of USA manufactured grenades: talk about quality control!

I don't know why you say grenades wouldn't be useful to throw into classrooms, work areas, theaters, etc. if someone was crazy -- isn't that what they are FOR? I read that soldiers threw grenades into Iraqi stone houses all the time to clear them out. You throw them at groups of people, and they all blow up, limbs a-flying.

All over the world anyone who wants to blow up a lot of people chooses bombs: cell phone or pressure switch controlled often, but grenades would work, that's why soldiers carry them. So suppose people could buy them at Walmart? They would, right? Everyone else in the world uses bombs, and if our crazies could get grenades, why would they fool with assault rifles? Much too slow. At Virginia Tech the mass murderer Cho used guns, but he went from classroom to classroom like Lanza did. Think of the improved efficiency and kill rate if he had had a manbag full of grenades from Walmart! Throw one in and keep going, throw another in another room, keep going.

The rest of the world has a HUGE problem with mass murderers, and they pretty much all use explosives. So grenades would quickly become the weapon of choice if crazies and terrorists here could get them freely under the Second Amendment.

So there is a problem about the Second Amendment already being infringed, since logically, grenades are clearly protected, but somehow --- we don't get to buy them at Walmart anyway.

Somebody forgot to tell this guy that explosives are hard to come by.

Sources: Bomb suspect threatened Yee - SFGate

Did you consider the possibility that the media isn't talking about explosives because it doesn't fit in with their guns are killing people agenda?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration.

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals. If individual sales required background checks, then that obstacle becomes a lot bigger. We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

CA requires universal background checks.
So does CT.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I can't see how there can be any real control over firearms without registration.

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals. If individual sales required background checks, then that obstacle becomes a lot bigger. We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

The math shows that very few gun sales are private. Why should we make a law to fix a problem that doesn't exist?

Background checks are a burden on the seller, If we require priavate individuals

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals. If individual sales required background checks, then that obstacle becomes a lot bigger. We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

CA requires universal background checks.
So does CT.

California has a list of 20.000 people who they say are not supposed to own guns that do.

 

[eflatminor]

So does CT.

And nothing bad happens there...

Too soon?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Yes, they -could- arbitrarily overturn the two rulings w/o any sound reason.
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade, for the foreseable future. I consider that this is a very possible, though deplorable thing. I see no reason why liberals should not attempt to do the same, with regard to, what I consider to be, legal precedents that do not reflect commion sense in todays society regarding guns.

You di dnot answer the questions:
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

M14, let me try to explain this to you. There is only "law", and "flawed and reversed law". There are only 9 people in the USA who have the authority to determine which is which. As far as I can tell, neither you, nor I are included in that group of 9 people. In reality, only 5 of them are necessary to determine the difference between "law", and "flawed, reversed law". Having made that decision, only 5 people who occupy those same seats have the authority to overturn it, but the decision made by those 5 people are the absolute authority of the law unless overturned later. There is absolutely nothing that trumps the decision of those 5 people, short of impeachment, which has never happened. If they should decide that the right to bear arms means slingshots, then that is the law of the land. If they should decide that the right to bear arms means nukes, that is the law of the land. Everybody knows which justices tend to make decisions leaning toward liberalism, and which justices lean toward conservative decisions. While congress must approve presidential nominees to the court, the president is under no obligation to nominate anyone with a world view different than his own. I will never again vote for a republican President or Congressman for this reason alone...though I have dozens of other reasons as well.

But if you insist on an answer to how I would feel if the Supreme Court overturned ACA without "a sound reason", then I will tell you that I know that a "sound reason" is not necessary (keep in mind that VERY few Supreme Court decisons are unanimous, so obviously different people have different opinions on what makes up "sound reasons"). I do not have the legal authority to judge legal decisons...and I would accept it gracefully, and continue to vote the democratic ticket in hopes that the next nominee sees things the same way that I do.

 

[Flopper]

Yes. Background checks, especially universal bacground checks, are simply a means to that end.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals.

Horse hockey:
1) They weren't in California, which requires background checks. It's had no impact on violent crime.
2) They weren't in Canada, where the homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented.
3) The so called "gun show loophole" is a made up emergency. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only .7% of convicts obtained their firearms at a gun show.
4) The vast, vast majority of guns used in crime are obtained illegally from the street, family or friends.

Registration won't deter anyone. The good guys will register, the bad guys will not.

We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals but are not as good as it should be because background checks are rarely done for sales between individuals. The only way to make the system work effectively is registration all firearms and require that all sellers report the sales and do background checks.

 

[OODA_Loop]

A grenade is an explosive.

No right to bear explosives.

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon.

If you "bear" a grenande you usually die.

A grenade is explosive ordance which is not borne by its user.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I fully expect that the conservatives are going to continue to reverse Row vs. wade, for the foreseable future. I consider that this is a very possible, though deplorable thing. I see no reason why liberals should not attempt to do the same, with regard to, what I consider to be, legal precedents that do not reflect commion sense in todays society regarding guns.

You di dnot answer the questions:
-When was the last time the SCotUS did this?
-How would you react if some future court arbitrarily overturned, say, the Obamacare decsion w/o any sound reasson?

M14, let me try to explain this to you.

On this issue, it is clear that there is nothing you can explain that I do not already understand - but, thank you for your consideration.

You can argue that Miller and Heller should be overturned, but you cannot give legally and logically sounds reasons for doing so -- mostly because there are none. Absent those reasons, there's no reason to think that the court will overturn them, no matter how much you want them to.

Miller has been around since 1939 and has the basis for every gun control decision from any federal court up until Emerson - one has to wonder why, all of a sudden, would it be reversed?

 

[eflatminor]

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals.

1) They weren't in California, which requires background checks. It's had no impact on violent crime.
2) They weren't in Canada, where the homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented.
3) The so called "gun show loophole" is a made up emergency. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only .7% of convicts obtained their firearms at a gun show.
4) The vast, vast majority of guns used in crime are obtained illegally from the street, family or friends.

Registration won't deter anyone. The good guys will register, the bad guys will not.

We can never stop all sales to felons and nut cases but we can do a lot better.

The evidence suggests otherwise.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals but are not as good as it should be because background checks are rarely done for sales between individuals.

That's EXACTLY what they did in California and Canada, required background check for every firearm sales, including between non-licensed individuals. The result? No impact whatsoever. Not surprising when you consider firearms used in crime are obtained either through the black market or obtained from friends or family members.

The only way to make the system work effectively is registration all firearms and require that all sellers report the sales and do background checks.

Again, the evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Horse hockey:
1) They weren't in California, which requires background checks. It's had no impact on violent crime.
2) They weren't in Canada, where the homicide rates were virtually unchanged before and after gun registration requirements were implemented.
3) The so called "gun show loophole" is a made up emergency. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, only .7% of convicts obtained their firearms at a gun show.
4) The vast, vast majority of guns used in crime are obtained illegally from the street, family or friends.

Registration won't deter anyone. The good guys will register, the bad guys will not.



The evidence suggests otherwise.

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals but are not as good as it should be because background checks are rarely done for sales between individuals.

That's EXACTLY what they did in California and Canada, required background check for every firearm sales, including between non-licensed individuals. The result? No impact whatsoever. Not surprising when you consider firearms used in crime are obtained either through the black market or obtained from friends or family members.

The only way to make the system work effectively is registration all firearms and require that all sellers report the sales and do background checks.

Again, the evidence suggests otherwise.

I would hope that I have not told you anything that you don't already know, since it is all 8th grade Ciivics. Nevertheless, you keep asking me to give you a legal opinion of why a law should be overturned, in spite of the fact that I have already told you that I am not an attorney. If I were, I would charge you $500 per hour for such opinion. I will say this again. If a liberal minded predident managed to get liberal justice nominees approved by congress that constituted a solid majority of 5, they could find a reason to override any Supreme Court decison on gun control, whether or not you or I considered it "sound". If they did not, they could easily fine tune it, with a decison on a new issue that is not exactly the same issue that was decided before. If, for example, they had defined "arms" as arms normally used by a militia, they might decide in a future case that such arms do not include any arms that require more than one person to operate it, such as a cannon. Or, they could decide that such arms do not include anything that would be unsafe to use in an urban environment, etc.

The greater issue, to me, is that the definition of arms that are legal for civilians is way too broad, and needs to be narrowed down to a common sense definition, which would not include weapons that I would put into the "spray and pray" catagory.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The greater issue, to me, is that the definition of arms that are legal for civilians is way too broad, and needs to be narrowed down to a common sense definition, which would not include weapons that I would put into the "spray and pray" catagory.

Unfotunately, you cannot reconcile this desire with the sound logic that brought the decisions we have into being.

 

[eflatminor]

Background checks are an obstacle for criminals but are not as good as it should be because background checks are rarely done for sales between individuals.

That's EXACTLY what they did in California and Canada, required background check for every firearm sales, including between non-licensed individuals. The result? No impact whatsoever. Not surprising when you consider firearms used in crime are obtained either through the black market or obtained from friends or family members.

The only way to make the system work effectively is registration all firearms and require that all sellers report the sales and do background checks.

Again, the evidence suggests otherwise.

I would hope that I have not told you anything that you don't already know, since it is all 8th grade Ciivics.

Not sure what you're referring to, but no, you've not presented anything new for me.

Nevertheless, you keep asking me to give you a legal opinion of why a law should be overturned, in spite of the fact that I have already told you that I am not an attorney.

I never asked you for a legal opinion. Perhaps you've confused me with someone else on this board.

If a liberal minded predident managed to get liberal justice nominees approved by congress that constituted a solid majority of 5, they could find a reason to override any Supreme Court decison on gun control, whether or not you or I considered it "sound".

That would be a major mistake, IMO.

If they did not, they could easily fine tune it, with a decison on a new issue that is not exactly the same issue that was decided before. If, for example, they had defined "arms" as arms normally used by a militia, they might decide in a future case that such arms do not include any arms that require more than one person to operate it, such as a cannon. Or, they could decide that such arms do not include anything that would be unsafe to use in an urban environment, etc.

Giant "if".

The greater issue, to me, is that the definition of arms that are legal for civilians is way too broad, and needs to be narrowed down to a common sense definition, which would not include weapons that I would put into the "spray and pray" catagory.

"Spray and pray" refers to a fully automatic firearm, which are already heavily regulated and almost never used in crime.

If you're referring to simple semi automatic firearms, which have been the standard for over 100 years, there is no chance of defining those as anything other than 'arms', which shall not be infringed.

 

[Vandalshandle]

eflat,
The truth of the matter is that civilians owning automatic weapons are not presently banned by the Constitution. Niether are weaponized drones, amoung many other things.

They should be.

 

[M14 Shooter]

eflat,
The truth of the matter is that civilians owning automatic weapons are not presently banned by the Constitution.
They should be.

Civilians have legally owned automatic weapons since therir inception.
Legally owned automatic weapons are the least used in crime, and their criminal use approaches 0.
What's the compelling state interest in banning them?

 

[Spoonman]

eflat,
The truth of the matter is that civilians owning automatic weapons are not presently banned by the Constitution. Niether are weaponized drones, amoung many other things.

They should be.

why don't we let James Madison who wrote the 2nd amendment decide that -
"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."

surely he doesn't want us to defend ourslves against them with muskets as gun grabbers would lead us to believe

 

[eflatminor]

eflat,
The truth of the matter is that civilians owning automatic weapons are not presently banned by the Constitution.

Nor should they be. We're supposed to have access to the same arms as the standing military. That's the idea.

Even in lieu of a 2nd amendment, why would you care about machine guns? It's not like they're a problem in crime. Nationally, "assault weapons" are used in only .25% of violent crime, and that includes all the semi auto firearms that we later mis-labelled and banned. The rate of actual machine guns used in crime is statistically nonexistent.

Niether are weaponized drones, amoung many other things.

They should be.

Goodness man, now there's a crime problem with drones? Pretty sure only government has such things.

 

[asaratis]

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.

We can actually own drones today. It is the sophistication to match the high tech drones that the government controls that we lack. I have seen model airplanes capable of carrying bombs (or even of becoming bombs). Radio control of pilotless aircraft is not new. However, in some existing airspace...it is illegal to fly them. I have seen a model airplane drop little bags of flour at targets around a replica war zone.

If a man had enough money and was so inclined, he could build (or have built) a drone on par with anything in the US arsenal. He might have a bit of trouble obtaining laser-guided missiles, but...everything he needs is for sale.