PDA

View Full Version : Interesting stuff when reading McDonald (anti-anti)


bsim
06-19-2010, 8:58 PM
So the Brady's wrote in support of neither party in the McDonald case. In their brief, they try and cite cases where restrictions on certain weapon posession has been put in place in the past.

One citation is here (p.24) (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_NeitherAmCuBradyCenterPreventGunViolencesuppo rtingneitherparty.pdf):Even earlier, the Supreme Court of Texas upheld a ban on certain types of weapons, noting that the “legislature may regulate [the right to bear arms] without taking it away.”
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 478 (1871).41
In sum, courts have overwhelmingly concluded that the right to keep and bear arms does not hinder the government from protecting the public safety by reasonably regulating firearms.English v. State (here (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/35tx473.html)) is a case where a guy was prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon (butcher knife at a church). The Brady's cite this:"The legislature may regulate it without taking it away..."But further in that ruling is this gem:To refer the deadly devices and instruments called in the statute "deadly weapons," to the proper or necessary arms of a "well-regulated militia," is simply ridiculous. No kind of travesty, however subtle or ingenious, could so misconstrue this provision of the constitution of the United States, as to make it cover and protect that pernicious vice, from which so many murders, assassinations, and deadly assaults have sprung, and which it was doubtless the intention of the legislature to punish and prohibit. The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms.(p.477)

The terms dirks, daggers, slungshots, sword-canes, brass-knuckles and bowie knives, belong to no military vocabulary. Were a soldier on duty found with any of these things about his person, he would be punished for an offense against discipline.I don't suppose using this as precedent would help today, and that we should have "artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar", but it's nice to see somebody got it right so long ago...

383green
06-19-2010, 9:10 PM
brass-knuckles and bowie knives, belong to no military vocabulary

Oh, really?

http://api.ning.com/files/ovBGwpnnC5Pj2HC-EL4RQAjGuKaCFwoGUitR1GObCwiWhe595UKcntcyiJDkk4sl/M1918Trenchknife.jpg

tiki
06-19-2010, 10:15 PM
Oh, really?

Ha ha ha. Awesome.

Flopper
06-19-2010, 10:47 PM
So is this what Scalia meant when referring to common use? That arms in common use in the military were protected?

If so he really should've been a little more specific and made reference to this case. It would've made that part of his opinion not appear so circular in addition to opening an avenue to getting NFA and FOPA repealed or at least Shall Issue.

press1280
06-20-2010, 3:27 AM
So the Brady's wrote in support of neither party in the McDonald case. In their brief, they try and cite cases where restrictions on certain weapon posession has been put in place in the past.

One citation is here (p.24) (http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/pdfs/09-10/08-1521_NeitherAmCuBradyCenterPreventGunViolencesuppo rtingneitherparty.pdf):English v. State (here (http://www.guncite.com/court/state/35tx473.html)) is a case where a guy was prosecuted for carrying a concealed weapon (butcher knife at a church). The Brady's cite this:But further in that ruling is this gem:I don't suppose using this as precedent would help today, and that we should have "artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar", but it's nice to see somebody got it right so long ago...

I'm not sure about the artillery part, but the dirks, daggers, exc. could become an issue. The military equipment I believe includes a knife;also when compared with a pistol or shotgun, it's difficult for one to say a knife is "dangerous and unusual" in comparison. Ask anyone on the street if a knife or gun is more dangerous and I bet they'll all say the gun is.
One thing about these 19th century cases is that the banned weapons were banned not because of what they were but WHO was using them at the time. Small, cheap pistols were prohibited because they were used by poor people, while the larger more expensive "horseman's" or army revolvers were protected because they were used by wealthy white people. That's why the 2A had been turned into a right for the "right" people only.

Kharn
06-20-2010, 3:45 AM
Is the M7 bayonet considered a dirk in CA? Spear point, full blade on the bottom, about half a blade on the top.

Quiet
06-20-2010, 4:00 AM
Is the M7 bayonet considered a dirk in CA? Spear point, full blade on the bottom, about half a blade on the top.

Yes.
Any stabing implement is considered a "dirk/dagger" under CA law [PC 12020(c)(24)].



Penal Code 12020
(c)(24) As used in this section, a "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.
A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 653k, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.

1JimMarch
06-20-2010, 4:25 AM
Right, BUT in Cali you can open-carry any blade you want, right up through sword length.

Well, outside of a few towns at least. Post-McDonald that can probably be fought.

Again: remember what Heller said. Concealed carry can probably be limited or eliminated only so long as open carry is OK. See the cases in Heller's footnote #9. For cutlery, California is in compliance with this because those same "dirks and daggers" are OK open-carry, even when double-edge for 3ft or more long (again, outside of a few towns).

Quiet
06-20-2010, 4:31 AM
I believe LA County has an ordinance outlawing open carry of a fixed blade of 3" or more.

BluNorthern
06-20-2010, 5:57 AM
Oh, really?

http://api.ning.com/files/ovBGwpnnC5Pj2HC-EL4RQAjGuKaCFwoGUitR1GObCwiWhe595UKcntcyiJDkk4sl/M1918Trenchknife.jpg
"Oh, really?" Is right! I've got a picture of my Dad in France during WWII...He's got a Model 1918 knife like that next to his 45 on his hip. They were issued to the early paratroopers.

RRangel
06-20-2010, 7:34 AM
I believe LA County has an ordinance outlawing open carry of a fixed blade of 3" or more.

That may be LA City.

charliedontsurf334
06-20-2010, 7:57 AM
That may be LA City.

Make sure to check that before you you OC with a katana in LA County!

tyrist
06-20-2010, 8:10 AM
I believe LA County has an ordinance outlawing open carry of a fixed blade of 3" or more.

It's the City of Los Angeles not the county. Just another reason why it's better to carry a folder concealed.

Crawfish141
06-20-2010, 12:54 PM
Yes.
Any stabing implement is considered a "dirk/dagger" under CA law [PC 12020(c)(24)].



Penal Code 12020
(c)(24) As used in this section, a "dirk" or "dagger" means a knife or other instrument with or without a handguard that is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death.
A nonlocking folding knife, a folding knife that is not prohibited by Section 653k, or a pocketknife is capable of ready use as a stabbing weapon that may inflict great bodily injury or death only if the blade of the knife is exposed and locked into position.

So are M7 bayonets illegal in Ca?

ke6guj
06-20-2010, 1:28 PM
So are M7 bayonets illegal in Ca?only when carried concealed.


12020. (a) Any person in this state who does any of the following is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in the state prison:

(4) Carries concealed upon his or her person any dirk or dagger.

(d) Knives carried in sheaths which are worn openly suspended from the waist of the wearer are not concealed within the meaning of this section.

Crawfish141
06-20-2010, 1:30 PM
only when carried concealed.



Good, I was afraid for a second.

bsim
06-20-2010, 7:13 PM
Wow, I didn't think the knife part was that important, I was more focused on the courts ruling of:The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier...

GoodEyeSniper
06-20-2010, 8:05 PM
This quote from Robb Stark sums up the sinking feeling I get about the future of gun rights in our country from time to time:

"I've won every battle, but somehow I'm losing the war"

I can't help but think no matter how many "high cases" we might win, they will all be very broad, and we will continue to be bombarded with bills for registration, ammunition bans and limits, and all sorts of "gun free zone" nonsense, which will keep us in non free states just as disarmed as before.

Although I have plenty of optimism about what all the brilliant minds here on CG have to say about it, those are just sort of rain clouds that cross my mind from time to time.

develown
06-20-2010, 9:19 PM
http://www.tanksforsale.co.uk/Vzor77%20DANA%20for%20sale/Dana-asnew9largeweb.gif

I was going to buy this