PDA

View Full Version : Oddities of wording, laws and rulings...


BlindRacer
07-30-2012, 12:44 PM
I've been thinking about a few things, and was wondering what everyone's take on them were.

WRT the second amendment's wording, and what sounds like a common understanding. It sounds like the SCOTUS believes that the only arms that are protected, are those that are bearable. However, why does the wording, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms', limit this? I see them as 2 separate segments of the amendment. One has the right to keep arms, as well as, one has the right to bear arms. To keep, can refer to bearable, as well as non bearable, such as cannons and the like. This was common for citizens to own during ratification. Just because 'bear' is protected, shouldn't mean that the protection is limited to only arms which are bearable.


And now for a second pondering, 'in common use at the time' from the Miller ruling, seems quite ambiguous to me. Does this mean that any and all innovation in arms is squandered? And does it mean that only significant changes to the function must be different for the arm to not be in common use?
Miller was wrt a short barrel shotgun. However, I don't see how a functionally identical arm, one being 1 millimeter longer of a barrel than the other, can justify something not being in common use. The length of a barrel is so insignificant, as well as ambiguous, that it really takes a good stretch of the imagination to figure out how one can call it not in common use.
'Common Use' to me, would look at the function of the item, rather than additional characteristics. Basically, muzzle loader, pump, bolt, lever, semi, full, etc. However, between pump, bolt, and lever, these are basically just different technologies to accomplish the same, hand manipulated action between shots.
So, how is something decided to be 'in common use', and how does innovation happen under these conditions. And also, if something is legislatively banned for a period of time, before it can be challenged in court, such as full auto, it basically falls out of 'common use', and therefore becomes unprotected.

Once this 'common use' is looked at with an un biased eye, especially with regards to something as ambiguous as barrel length, one has to wonder how it can continue to be upheld. To make a felony out of something that is 15.99", however completely legal at 16.0", seems like it's begging to be struck down. Unconstitutionally vague if nothing else. However, it's vagueness shouldn't even matter. Pistol barrels are shorter than 16", so who really cares if a rifle or shotgun barrel is. It just doesn't make sense.

I'd love for everyone's insight, and opinions regarding these topics.

Ctwo
07-30-2012, 1:37 PM
Now you went and injected logical thinking into our laws. That is not going to work...

rayrayz
07-30-2012, 1:50 PM
LOL I would have to concur with Ctwo.....

Chosen_1
07-30-2012, 2:12 PM
Are you proposing to fix dumb things the government has done?

dantodd
07-30-2012, 2:39 PM
It has been suggested here before that one not ask for anal sex on the first date. I will suggest you follow the same example.

If we have shall issue laws and reciprocity in 50 states the "blood in the streets" argument dies out. Once that argument is dead and buried it is much easier to ask for more. The problem is that if you ask too soon you will lose and getting SCOTUS to change their mind is exceedingly difficult, as it should be.

BlindRacer
07-30-2012, 3:30 PM
It has been suggested here before that one not ask for anal sex on the first date. I will suggest you follow the same example.

If we have shall issue laws and reciprocity in 50 states the "blood in the streets" argument dies out. Once that argument is dead and buried it is much easier to ask for more. The problem is that if you ask too soon you will lose and getting SCOTUS to change their mind is exceedingly difficult, as it should be.

I understand your reference is akin to Full Auto, however, the length of a barrel is possibly like asking for a hug after the second date.

Some of these same topics are being discussed in the Scalia thread currently, so I guess we don't need to delve further here. Was just something that was on my mind, and must have been sparked by something else I saw, since the same topics are elsewhere at the same time.