2nd Amendment Regulation

[mvpel]

The NICS is virtually ineffective at stopping prohibited persons from getting a firearm.

And it imposes prior restraint on law-abiding citizens in an exercise of a fundamental constitutional right to boot.

Sure, prosecute violent felons caught in possession of firearms, why not? Perhaps a lifetime ban on ownership by violent felons is justifiable, since their rights will have been removed by due process of law.

But to impose restrictions and waiting periods on people who have done nothing wrong or illegal whatsoever seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

[USAFNoDak]

mvpel posted:

But to impose restrictions and waiting periods on people who have done nothing wrong or illegal whatsoever seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

Especially when we see that it has done nothing to affect the rates at which violent crimes are committed, including those crimes where the criminals used guns as tools during the commission of their crimes. The strict scrutiny invoked by the wording of the Second Amendment, means the government has to have a very, very, compelling arguement for why the right is being limited or "infringed" upon. The Second Amendment says the right "shall not be infringed", but we can argue that later. For now, what is the compelling government arguement? That a prior restraint on law abiding citizens is positively affecting the safety of our society at large? Where's the proof? I'd like to see the data on how crime was affected by implementing the NICS. It was not affected, despite the lies that Clinton spread about how many felons had been caught trying to purchase firearms. 600K? Right. And he never had sexual relations with Monica, or harrassed Paula Jones, Jaunita Broderick or Kathleen Willey.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

I never equated them. I just said that they can all be dangerous, depending upon what they are used for and how.

I think you are equating them and they are not the same. Firearms are dangerous and are designed mostly to kill things. Since the chain saws and machete were not designed to do that I think there is your strawman. Lots of things can kill people but firearms are different and we gun owners should acknowledge that.

I call your strawman arguement and raise you one. I think we should definitely separate felonies. The threat to society by some felonies is certainly higher than others. The punishments should reflect that.

The example of the WiFi smells bad to me. I think we may have an overzealous prosecutor who was probably trying to get the guy to plead out. I doubt he has a felony on his record. White collar crimes are bad too and I have no problem with Dennis Kozlowski never owning a gun again or not being able to vote. Same goes for Elliott Spitzer. Legislatures decide what constitutes a felony. Change the law if you don't like it but I don't like thieves and have no problem if they can't own guns or vote. If they clean up their acts later they can petition and pay a lawyer to get their rights back.

But to impose restrictions and waiting periods on people who have done nothing wrong or illegal whatsoever seems unlikely to pass constitutional muster.

I think that train left the station, it is constitutional. Heller and subsequent rulings will not I think throw out the NICS.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Steve,

As I've discussed with TNGent before on the issue of select fire weapons, it is definitely a slippery slope that will lead to more restrictions, and prohibitions. If that sounds like paranoia, another AWB bill just was written and is waiting and hoping to be passed...there are lever gun and other CAS guns in there.

There are some slippery slopes out there regarding civil rights but full auto isn't one of them. I think the real argument that the antis have with so called assult weapons is the large magazine capacity although they often get confused on semi auto operation of a firearm. That said, I don't think that a heavy regulation on full auto will translate into losing all semi-auto firearms. We've had the full auto regulations in effect for 70 plus years and we still have semi-autos. I think there is a very clear and defineable difference with full auto and that is why I like Gura's standard involving the lineal decendants of the musket in his argument. The full auto folks ain't gonna get the NFA overturned thru the courts and I doubt they could ever muster support for it's repeal. I liked this quote:

The solution to 922(o) will have to be political in the end. The fact is, outside the gun community, the concept of privately owned machine guns is intolerable to American society and 100% of all federal judges.

and finally:

You want to change 922(o)? Take a new person shooting. Work for "climate change".

[wpcexpert]

I used to say, when I was younger and w/out a family, that I should be able to own whatever sort of ordinance I choose. I have not broken any laws, don't plan too, so i should not be restricted in any way. But now I see thing in a different stand point.

The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.

I think this country, as a whole, is has done right by us in that aspect. I mean now, as to what we have, the extremist states excluded. I can and do own assault style rifles, handguns, long range rifles. There are permits I can obtain for Fully automatic weapons if I choose. I don't see the need for anymore fire power than that. I can't imagine trying to defend my household against that kind of firepower. So I'm good with what we have right now.

About felons and Background checks. If there weren't back ground checks, a felon could walk in and buy a weapon, anywhere. He wouldn't need to go thru the difficulties of obtaining it illegally. But I'm against background checks at gun shows, a little off I know. I don't really like anyone to know what I have, peroid. But that is just me. Do I think that a gun show is the perfect way for someone that should not have a gun, to obtain one? Sure. That's what I would do.

But I don't concider my rights violated by an extra 10 minute wait to walk out with firearm. Waiting periods suck though. They serve no purpose except to annoy the gun purchaser.

[HKuser]

I think there is a very clear and defineable different with full auto and that is why I like Gura's standard involving the lineal decendants of the musket in his argument. The full auto folks ain't gonna get the NFA overturned thru the courts and I doubt they could ever muster support for it's repeal.

The M16 is much more of a lineal descendant of the musket than any other arms. The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands. If we're talking strict scrutiny, not your druthers, how would NFA ever survive? Gura's argument here is simply untenable. I know why he did it, live to fight another day, but it's wrong.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

If we're talking strict scrutiny, not your druthers, how would NFA ever survive? Gura's argument here is simply untenable.

Actually I think it is quite reasonable. Mainly because the nature of weaponry and warfare has changed and that would survive strict scrutiny. Technology and lethality to be short. These weapons restricted by the NFA were designed for pure military use (except maybe suppressors) and have no suitable civilian use. They are I maintain poor for self defense and hunting as well. They have only a military use.

Now:

The 2nd Amendment, if it protects anything, protects military arms in private hands.

Mr. Dellinger from DC would agree and then say that unless you are in the military you have no right to bear arms. The SCOTUS correctly separated the militia clause from the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Therefore, Gura argued correctly when asked if any firearms could be restricted that yes those not in common civilian use or suitable for civilian self defense could be regulated. The "druthers" issue you spoke about then comes into play when we say civilians have a right to military arms because it becomes your "druthers" on where to stop or regulate so now we all have nukes.

[Socrates]

The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.

Bad premise, worse conclusion. What made the founding father's so amazing is their ability to write a Constitution that has the ability to stand the test of time.

If not for FDR, we would still have a government that resembled their conception. It certainly is the government they intended to limit. If not for FDR failing his oath, we would still have their conception of a government.

I live in a state that represents where the slippery slope will get you, P.R. of Kali.

Everything is illegal, including our current military semi-auto battle rifle....

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Everything is illegal, including our current military semi-auto battle rifle....

No guns allowed in California? Wow!

Seriously, wpcexpert makes a good point. Muskets are not the same thing as grenade launchers. Public safety demands that we regulate some dnagerous things and we have to draw lines with firearms. I maintain weapons in common use by civilians meet that criteria.

[HKuser]

Actually I think it is quite reasonable. Mainly because the nature of weaponry and warfare has changed and that would survive strict scrutiny. Technology and lethality to be short. These weapons restricted by the NFA were designed for pure military use (except maybe suppressors) and have no suitable civilian use. They are I maintain poor for self defense and hunting as well. They have only a military use.

Do the strict scrutiny analysis then, spell it out.

Now:

Mr. Dellinger from DC would agree and then say that unless you are in the military you have no right to bear arms.

I said, "in private hands," if he agrees to that he loses.

I maintain weapons in common use by civilians meet that criteria.

This is constitutionally nonsensical. If the government is successful enough at regulating something long enough then they can right ahead doing it even if later a right is found. "Separate but equal survived for 80 years, so go right ahead with it"? Strange jurisprudence.

The "druthers" issue you spoke about then comes into play when we say civilians have a right to military arms because it becomes your "druthers" on where to stop or regulate so now we all have nukes.

Not my druthers, but strict scrutiny jurisprudence. Full auto arms are standard issue to every infantry on earth or nearly. Nukes ain't, never have been, only been used twice in all history, they don't fill the current role of the musket.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

Do the strict scrutiny analysis then, spell it out.

Well, I am not a lawyer but here goes. First I would delink as Gura did the requirement to bear arms being only related to service in the militia. Then I would say that the right to bear arms emcompasses personal self defense. I would argue that weapons in common use by civilians now are sufficient for these purposes of self-defense. Full auto were designed purely for military uses and therefore the government might well ban or regulate them as a reasonable limitation of the second amendment.
Here is another quote from the Second Amendment Foundation:

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms. Eighteenth century Americans commonly used the same arms for civilian and military purposes, but today’s infantry and organized militia are equipped with an array of highly lethal weaponry that civilians do not employ for self defense or other important lawful purposes. The Constitution does not require this Court to blind itself to that post-Miller reality, or to hold that the civilian population has a right to keep every weapon that the militia can expect to find useful if called to active duty.

Full auto arms are standard issue to every infantry on earth or nearly.

Lots of other weapons are too. Grenade Launchers, Stinger Missiles, Land mines. Should they be protected by the 2a?

Nukes ain't, never have been, only been used twice in all history

Not true. Engineer units had 'em and did you ever hear of the Davy Crockett?

[HKuser]

Quote:

Well, I am not a lawyer but here goes.

You're right, you really don't understand strict scrutiny.

Quote:

Not true. Engineer units had 'em and did you ever hear of the Davy Crockett?

Just handed 'em out to every infantryman, did they? And nukes fill the role formerly occupied by the musket, do they? Learn something new on the Internet every day!

[tyme]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Well, I am not a lawyer but here goes. First I would delink as Gura did the requirement to bear arms being only related to service in the militia. Then I would say that the right to bear arms emcompasses personal self defense. I would argue that weapons in common use by civilians now are sufficient for these purposes of self-defense. Full auto were designed purely for military uses and therefore the government might well ban or regulate them as a reasonable limitation of the second amendment.

That's only part of the equation. Firstly, where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to personal self defense? If you want to rewrite history for yourself, fine, but don't rewrite it for me or for the founders. The "military purposes" vs "personal defense" dichotomy is one invented in the last century by the gun-grabbers primarily as a result of the horribly-worded Miller case. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as written unless you read the Militia clause as a reference to an organized militia and as a limit on the operative clause, neither of which is tenable.

How does regulating full-auto serve the government's interest in preventing federal crimes? Seeing as how so few crimes are committed with full-auto firearms, and even fewer are committed with full-auto firearms legally owned by private citizens, it's very hard to make a case that any sort of regulation on full-auto weapons is necessary to achieve ANY objective, much less one that is constitutionally permissible.

Same with explosives. Bad people who are going to blow up things really don't care about the law, and explosives are not so hard to make that regulations can/will effectively stop them from being made.

Then someone comes along with the argument that just because it's hard to catch or stop people doesn't mean we shouldn't try. That's a fine argument when dealing with actual malum in se criminal transactions like violent crimes. Even though we may not be able to stop most murders, going after the perpetrators, no matter the success rate, is justifiable. There is a victim.

Going after people who own, buy, or make firearms or explosives is something else entirely. There is no evidence just from that that they intend to hurt anyone, and if there is, how about pursuing the matter on the basis of the (imminent) commission of a violent crime, rather than possession of inanimate objects?

[Jermtheory]

That's only part of the equation. Firstly, where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to personal self defense? If you want to rewrite history for yourself, fine, but don't rewrite it for me or for the founders. The "military purposes" vs "personal defense" dichotomy is one invented in the last century by the gun-grabbers primarily as a result of the horribly-worded Miller case. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as written unless you read the Militia clause as a reference to an organized militia and as a limit on the operative clause, neither of which is tenable.

How does regulating full-auto serve the government's interest in preventing federal crimes? Seeing as how so few crimes are committed with full-auto firearms, and even fewer are committed with full-auto firearms legally owned by private citizens, it's very hard to make a case that any sort of regulation on full-auto weapons is necessary to achieve ANY objective, much less one that is constitutionally permissible.

Same with explosives. Bad people who are going to blow up things really don't care about the law, and explosives are not so hard to make that regulations can/will effectively stop them from being made.

Then someone comes along with the argument that just because it's hard to catch or stop people doesn't mean we shouldn't try. That's a fine argument when dealing with actual malum in se criminal transactions like violent crimes. Even though we may not be able to stop most murders, going after the perpetrators, no matter the success rate, is justifiable. There is a victim.

Going after people who own, buy, or make firearms or explosives is something else entirely. There is no evidence just from that that they intend to hurt anyone, and if there is, how about pursuing the matter on the basis of the (imminent) commission of a violent crime, rather than possession of inanimate objects?

thank you!

ive been on the verge of attempting to make the same points...but i was hoping someone would come along and do it more coherently than i would have.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Antipas

One of the problems with the felony exclusion is the notion that a felony then was something reserved for heinous crimes. Today, a felony has almost lost its meaning, since the various legislatures have made almost everything under the sun, a felony.

I totally agree, which is why I didn't say in my post that a person should be barred for felony conviction (but rather violent crime, chronic drug/alcohol abuse, and mental instability) as there are many felonies that a person may commit that don't necessarily make them a danger to society. Barring based on felony conviction could work well, but only after a serious re-evaluation of just how heinous a crime can be a felony.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

happen to like and agree with the argument that Alan Gura made that established weapons in common use by civilians for self-defense/hunting/ traget etc. While I like machineguns and other NFA type weapons and do not wish for them to be banned (even though some here think full auto weapons have been by the FOPA "86) I have no problem with them being heavily regulated and in some cases banned. Gura was also criticized for conceding that point but I liked his answer. If you don't like the 1934 NFA then repeal the law. He didn't think and I don't think you will get any public or court support to legalize without restrictions those NFA weapons. I maintain that those weapons were designed for military use and are not suitable for civilian self-defense and so I don't think the second amendment applies. My two cents.

The 2nd Ammendment was written back before the thought of an automatic weapon, grenades, rocket launchers, hell even a rifle that fired a bullet from a little case. So the authors were not/could not have even fathomed the need to restrict them.

The problem is that restrictions on full-auto and most types of explosives are, in one way or another, punishing people for a crime that they have not yet committed. It is not overly hard to own or operate a machinegun, greanade, or even rocket launcher safely with no harm to anyone else. So long as I have a proper range in which to operate them (which is required for a flintlock rifle or bow and arrow), no one is put at risk by my lawful use of them. Why should I be restricted (and therfore punished) when I have not and am not harming or infringing upon the rights of anyone else? The Constitution is an elastic document and was made that way so that it could survive the changes of society over time (as it has for the past 200+ years). I find it very hard to believe that the brilliant men with such foresight to make an elastic constitution couldn't fathom advances in weapons design enough to consider them when they penned the 2nd Amendment.

I think this country, as a whole, is has done right by us in that aspect. I mean now, as to what we have, the extremist states excluded. I can and do own assault style rifles, handguns, long range rifles. There are permits I can obtain for Fully automatic weapons if I choose. I don't see the need for anymore fire power than that. I can't imagine trying to defend my household against that kind of firepower. So I'm good with what we have right now

Fully-automatic weapons and explosives can be relatively easily obtained and/or fabricated by illegal means. If someone wishes to commit the serious crime of attacking your home with such an illegal weapon, I very highly doubt that a firearms or explosives crime is among their concerns. This being the case, why should you or I have to bear such a heavy legal and financial burden to lawfully defend ourselves from those who are already more than willing to break the law?

Mr. Dellinger from DC would agree and then say that unless you are in the military you have no right to bear arms. The SCOTUS correctly separated the militia clause from the right of individuals to keep and bear arms. Therefore, Gura argued correctly when asked if any firearms could be restricted that yes those not in common civilian use or suitable for civilian self defense could be regulated.

The mention of the militia was, I believe, put in the 2nd Amendment to give the reasoning for the Amendment's existance rather than to specify it's execution. The reason that our right to keep and bear arms is so important is so that our country can be more effectively defended against an invading army or tyrannical government (afterall, a militia is the citizenry of a country, not the regualr army). Certainly such forces would be equiped with military style weapons, thus the civilian's right to own the same or superior weapons is essential to adequately defend against them.

The "druthers" issue you spoke about then comes into play when we say civilians have a right to military arms because it becomes your "druthers" on where to stop or regulate so now we all have nukes.

Nukes are a very different thing than firearms and most types of explosives. It is extremely difficult if not impossible to safely own and operate a nuclear device. Because the mere ownership and operation of such devices (along with chemical and biological agents and certain extremely volitile explosives) presents a significant public safety hazard, I think it's reasonable to restrict them. Frankly, the whole nuke issue in such an argument is little more than a red herring.

Lots of other weapons are too. Grenade Launchers, Stinger Missiles, Land mines. Should they be protected by the 2a?

So long as their responsible ownership and operation does not present a public safety hazard, yes they should.

[Al Norris]

Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I would argue that weapons in common use by civilians now are sufficient for these purposes of self-defense.

If that was the only purpose of the second amendment, then I would agree. Yet the history and the debates reveal that self defense was only a minor player in the right. The purpose of the preamble to the amendment was to remind us that the militia is the people, and they needed the self-same weaponry of the soldier (Tench Coxe) in order to defend the community against outside invasion, even to the point of defending the community against a government turned to tyranny.

One cannot avoid that meaning, simply by de-linking the preamble.

Originally Posted by SAF

Even more important, a significant gap has developed between civilian and military small arms.

A gap that was perpetrated by the government itself by its enactment of the NFA (1934) and a bit later the FFA (1937) and finally cemented by the FOPA (1986). Before this, military hardware was rather common amongst certain segments of the population.

While I don't see the NFA going away, I do see the 922(o) exception being tossed and the registry reopened.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You're right, you really don't understand strict scrutiny.

Well, then please educate me. And while you're at it, please explain why the 1934 NFA and the 1986 FOPA are still the laws of the land. If it is so obvious that the 2A protects a citizen's right to own any and all weapons he may afford to buy why these laws haven't been overturned? Oh, and by the way, they will still be in place after Heller and I don't think you or I will live to see them overturned by the courts at least.

Just handed 'em out to every infantryman, did they? And nukes fill the role formerly occupied by the musket, do they? Learn something new on the Internet every day!

What does Infantry and muskets have to do with anything. 2A doesn't talk about that at all. What about cannon? Was that protected? Also, rudimentary mines were used as weapons then. Them too? Pistols were only issued to officers so does that exclude our having them as Dellinger argued?

The fact is there is no more militia in existence today and hasn't been in years. We have professional soldiers who fight for us and not militias. We live in a different world than 1790 and so the SCOTUS will interpret what the applicaility of the 2A is. You aren't going to get machine guns and other military weapons made available to civilians by the courts and probably not by any legislature. I think we can defend ourselves and maintain our rights with the weapons available to us now. This machine gun and grenade launcher talk makes us gun owners look like crazies and I will always speak against it. If you want those weapons join the military.

[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Antipas

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tennessee Gentleman
I would argue that weapons in common use by civilians now are sufficient for these purposes of self-defense.

If that was the only purpose of the second amendment, then I would agree. Yet the history and the debates reveal that self defense was only a minor player in the right. The purpose of the preamble to the amendment was to remind us that the militia is the people, and they needed the self-same weaponry of the soldier (Tench Coxe) in order to defend the community against outside invasion, even to the point of defending the community against a government turned to tyranny.

This can be looked at another way: Self-Defense is the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Defense of oneself not only from common criminals, but also from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. Also, defense of oneself is not limited only to one's life, defense of one's freedom can also be viewed as self-defense. The important thing here is that the necessity for the right to keep and bear arms (even military arms) is still the conclusion we come to whether looked at as Antipas did, or this way.

What does Infantry and muskets have to do with anything. 2A doesn't talk about that at all. What about cannon? Was that protected? Also, rudimentary mines were used as weapons then. Them too? Pistols were only issued to officers so does that exclude our having them as Dellinger argued?

Find me a federal law in existance before the NFA was passed that prohibited the posession of cannons, mines, or pistols. Certainly there were local ones, but a law must be challenged in court and then be appealed far enough to reach the SCOTUS in order to be declared unconstitutional, not an easy thing to do.

The fact is there is no more militia in existence today and hasn't been in years. We have professional soldiers who fight for us and not militias. We live in a different world than 1790 and so the SCOTUS will interpret what the applicaility of the 2A is. You aren't going to get machine guns and other military weapons made available to civilians by the courts and probably not by any legislature.

Yes, as a matter of fact there is a militia still in existance. Here are links to both of our state militias

http://www.indianamilitia.org/
http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/mil_ustn.htm

While the SCOTUS decision may or may not make machineguns available to us, that doesn't necessarily mean that their decision is right nor coincides with what the Founding Father's intentions were. I have enumerated what I believe to be right and what I believe the founding fathers intentions were and the reasons for my opinions. Because the Justices of the Supreme Court are human, they too have differing opinions (even amongst themselves) and view which I may or may not agree with. I guess we'll just have to see, but regardless of their decision, others and myself have expressed how we think it should be.

I think we can defend ourselves and maintain our rights with the weapons available to us now.

While we may be able to defend ourselves with the weapons available to us now, whose to say if we'll be able to defend ourselves with those weapons tomorrow. The future is always uncertain. I doubt many people gave much thought to the NYC skyline on 9/10/2001, but things changed quite rapidly.

This machine gun and grenade launcher talk makes us gun owners look like crazies and I will always speak against it. If you want those weapons join the military.

How is it crazy to want the most effective means of self-defense and be able to exercise the rights enumerated (not given) by the Constitution? Why should I have to join the military in order to exercise my freedom?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

A gap that was perpetrated by the government itself by its enactment of the NFA (1934) and a bit later the FFA (1937) and finally cemented by the FOPA (1986). Before this, military hardware was rather common amongst certain segments of the population.

I disagree with you that these weapons were common before the NFA. I don't believe they were because of their expense and lack of civilian practicality. You'd have to show me proof to the contrary The government controlled them because criminals used them and outgunned police. I don't think farmer Joe used a BAR to keep wolves away from the chicken coup. Waste of ammo.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

This can be looked at another way: Self-Defense is the sole purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Defense of oneself not only from common criminals, but also from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government.

Agree somewhat with you except for the foreign invaders. We have professional military that does that for us today and they didn't really exist in 1790. Ain't nonbody gonna invade us with an armed force today, we have nukes. I really don't buy the tryrannical government thing as applying to military arms being necessary. The guns we have now available to us can take care of that issue.

[BillCA]

If the Heller decision is positive in that it finds both an individual right and a fundamental right, we can expect to see a "strict scrutiny" applied to cases brought before the courts. (I'm always hopeful).

If that is the case, then we look at most of the other rights to see what kinds of restrictions or limitations are applied.

In General
Restrictions on rights - free speech, free press, religion, peaceable assembly, etc. are those that require an action or conduct that directly violates the rights of others.

Here we can use the well-worn "falsely shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre" as an example. Your right to free speech is negated when it puts others into direct danger. Likewise the freedom of the press ends when you write libel or slanderous articles; incite others to riot or lynch a prisioner from authorities, etc.

Such restrictions put the public on notice of what kind of conduct is not protected (and likely unlawful).

Where gun-control laws run afoul of this general rule is that they are pre-emptive and/or criminalize normal conduct that is neither harmful nor otherwise illegal. They subject you to restrictions up front and in many cases criminalize, not a person's conduct, but the failure to have a document or to pay a fee before exercising the right.

Regulation that does not limit conduct with a firearm should not be able to pass a strict-scrutiny test.

Restrictions such as one-gun-a-month, waiting periods, FOID (ownership) documents, permits to buy, posess, transport or keep in a business do not seek to regulate only unlawful or harmful conduct.

The ACLU would collectively give birth to a set of purple dishes if you were required obtain a "permit" or pay some "fee" to get a lawyer in a criminal proceeding. Nor could you be limited to attending church services to once-a-month.

Imagine the uproar from civil libertarians if you were required to purchase and use locks for every door, cabinet or drawer to invoke your 4th amendment search & seizure rights.

Such restrictions are not permitted because they do not involve "conduct" that directly violates the rights of others.

[44 AMP]

When it comes to those categories of prohibited persons, I believe that the govt should only prohibit those individuals that have been determined through due process to be unable to manage their own affairs. People adjudicated top be mentally incompetent (such as unable to understand basic right from wrong, for example). I don't care if you think you are the Queen of the May, you could own a gun, as the Queen of the May knows it is wrong to shoot people for fun or profit.

Abuse the right, and you get the same punishment as anyone else. Now if you are the kind of mental case that will do whatever the voices tell you, even when it is wrong, then, no gun rights. And I wouldn't be too comfortable with you driving a car or owning a sharp knife either.

I think you are equating them and they are not the same. Firearms are dangerous and are designed mostly to kill things. Since the chain saws and machete were not designed to do that I think there is your strawman. Lots of things can kill people but firearms are different and we gun owners should acknowledge that

emphasis added

No, they are not. Here, you have fallen into the trap of the anti gunners. Your statement that firearms are dangerous demonstrates that you think they have some innate ability of their own. They do not. Firearms, chainsaws, machetes, laptops and books are not dangerous. Only people are dangerous. Firearms may be designed to kill, but so are chainsaws and machetes designed to kill trees and plants. Knives are designed to cut. That does not make them dangerous. It is the hand that wields them, and the mind that directs it that makes anything dangerous. Guns are more efficient at killing at a distance than a knife or a bow and arrow or a thrown rock, but it is the will of the user, NOT the firearm or other object that makes it a weapon. Antigunners want us to believe that it is the gun that determines our choices of behavior, that the gun, by its mere existence causes good people to commit evil. How can any rational person simply ignore the concept that humans have free will?

Every act we do throughout our entire lives is because we choose to do it. Our reasoning behind the choice may be flawed or valid, but it is an inescapable fact that we choose to do it. We may regret doing it the moment after it happens, we may regret that it had consequences beyond what we wished, but the fact remains that at the moment we did it, we chose to do it. "I didn't mean to do it" is an emotional cop-out. Every one of us, at the instant we do it, always means to do it. "I didn't mean for what I did to have the result it did" is the honest meaning of "I didn't mean to do it", but we don't say that, or not often at any rate.

We have free will. We choose to do things, good and bad. Accept that, and move your thinking out of the dark ages. You can't have it both ways. If we don't have free will, if we are compelled by some outside force, then why are we punished for breaking the laws? If it is not our choice, what is the point of punishment? After all, if we can't help it, if it isn't our fault, what good does punishment serve? None that I can see. The fact that we have free will, and that punishment (or fear of it) influences our decisions is one of the major cornerstones of civilization.

And for those who argue that we do not have a fundamental right to military weapons, one of our Founders (Adams, I think) once said something like "all the terrible implements of the soldier are the birthright of the American people". I may not have the quote exact (going from memory here), but the implication was that ALL military weapons are the people's right. Don't bother with arguing that they could not have known about machineguns and bombs, it won't wash. They knew about cannon and explosives. Actual repeating firearms did exist during the time of our Founders, and even though primitive by today's standards, the concept that weapons would improve over time was understood by them.

Our Founders considered the people to be the militia, and believed that we should have legal protection (2nd Amendment) of our natural right to military weapons. The right to arms for personal protection is only a subset of that fundamental right. Clubs and rocks, swords and bows, rifles and cannon, machine guns and rocket launchers, all are only the details of technology. The fundamental underlying principle is the same. And it is a valid one.

It is a legal fiction, and a popular one, that the Constitution and Bill of Rights grants us our rights. They do not. And they contains language specifically stating that not all our rights are listed in them. What the Constitution and Bill of Rights are is a document listing the limits of govermental power. It is a list of what government shall not do, not a list of what citizens are allowed to do.

We have come a long, long way from what our Founders intended, and the chains we wear today have been forged patiently, link by link, over a long time by men who deliberately sought power and authority over others. And they did so while claiming nothing but the best intentions for all of us.

They lied.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That's only part of the equation. Firstly, where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies only to personal self defense? If you want to rewrite history for yourself, fine, but don't rewrite it for me or for the founders. The "military purposes" vs "personal defense" dichotomy is one invented in the last century by the gun-grabbers primarily as a result of the horribly-worded Miller case. It has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment as written unless you read the Militia clause as a reference to an organized militia and as a limit on the operative clause, neither of which is tenable.

The militia was necessary because we had no standing Army. Sometime in the 20th Century we quit calling up militias and used a professional standing Army augmented by draftees until 1973 which now is all-volunteer. Self defense is I believe the meaning of the operative clause the right to keep and bear arms which is different from the militia clause. One of the Justices put it better saying that the second clause expanded the right to include personal ownership which means self-defense. That is what Heller argued about: self defense. The court will hold I believe that we have an individual right but that right is limited by law and all federal laws will remain in effect with only DC's (which was over the top) falling away.

How does regulating full-auto serve the government's interest in preventing federal crimes?

How does any law prevent crimes? Criminals don't obey laws. Using that argument we should have no laws.

Seeing as how so few crimes are committed with full-auto firearms, and even fewer are committed with full-auto firearms legally owned by private citizens,

Probably because they are controlled and hard to get. Virtually none have been committed by legally owned full auto because I submit they are so heavily regulated.

This being the case, why should you or I have to bear such a heavy legal and financial burden to lawfully defend ourselves from those who are already more than willing to break the law?

I can defend me and mine fine right now. The regulations against full auto doesn't affect that for me or you I suspect. In fact, if FA were unregulated and cheap I wouldn't keep one for self defense as they are not suitable for civilian use as such. They are designed for military use either as fire supression or area denial. My semi-auto AR-15 is more than enough and so is my revolver.

[Webleymkv]

Agree somewhat with you except for the foreign invaders. We have professional military that does that for us today and they didn't really exist in 1790. Ain't nonbody gonna invade us with an armed force today, we have nukes.

I'll bet that people living in Rome about 2000 years ago didn't think their city would ever be invaded. I'll bet someone living in Berlin in 1939 didn't think their city would ever be invaded. I'll bet someone living in Hawaii in 1940 didn't think their territory would ever be attacked by a foreign military. I'll bet someone living in NYC in 2000 didn't think their city would ever be the victim of the worst mass murder ever carried out on U.S. soil. Unless you can see the future, you can't say that with absolute certainty.

I really don't buy the tryrannical government thing as applying to military arms being necessary. The guns we have now available to us can take care of that issue.

Well, if you were looking down the barrel of an M16 or MP5 with your sporting rifle in your hand, I think you might view this a bit differently.

I can defend me and mine fine right now. The regulations against full auto doesn't affect that for me or you I suspect. In fact, if FA were unregulated and cheap I wouldn't keep one for self defense as they are not suitable for civilian use as such. They are designed for military use either as fire supression or area denial. My semi-auto AR-15 is more than enough and so is my revolver.

Would you feel the same way if you were defending yourself from someone armed with a fully-automatic weapon? Besides, when did we start having to show a need in order to own something. Very few people need a motorcycle so should we heavily restrict or ban their ownership? Very few people need an HD TV, so should you have to pay a tax stamp to get one? Very few people need a fast car, so should you have to join a racing team to buy one? Many people don't need a big pickup truck, should you have to live on a farm or work construction to drive one?

[Tennessee Gentleman]

No, they are not. Here, you have fallen into the trap of the anti gunners. Your statement that firearms are dangerous demonstrates that you think they have some innate ability of their own.

Yes, firearms are different from axes and scissors. This has nothing to do with evil. That is an old progun canard. We say: Guns don't kill people, people kill people" answered by the equally inane: "people kill people with guns" by the antis. We need to get beyond that. Guns are inherently dangerous and that has nothing to do with evil intent. They are dangerous and they are the number one way people murder each other. Why, because they are efficient at doing that. We lose a lot of credibility when we spout off this stuff that guns are like toasters when we and the rest of the public know better. Rather I think it is better to say "Yes they are dangerous, but I and you can learn to handle them safely and at the same time protect ourselves from harm with them".