PDA

View Full Version : Limitations of Second Amendment


Piper
11-26-2007, 6:52 PM
I'm sitting here listening to NRA News and I'm wondering, to what extent do proponents of the Second Amendment think the 2A should be limited ? I don't want to do a poll, I'm just interested in your opinions.

Contemporary scholars are saying that this right existed before the BOR so to me that pretty much says that no limitations should be placed on this right. However, free speech existed before the BOR but we say that you can't yell FIRE in a theatre or for that matter liable or slander a person. Then there is the right to peacfully assemble, however citizens are required under certain circumstances to obtain a permit when excercising this right. Is it reasonable to allow private citizens to carry MG's in public like Israel's citizens do?

So what are reasonable limitations on the 2A, besides keeping weapons away from violent felons? I tend to lean toward Ted Nugent and his opinion about the 2A. I realize that the framers only knew about single shot muzzle loaders, but I don't think they were so short sighted that they couldn't conceive of improvements in firearms technology. Tell me what you think.

DedEye
11-26-2007, 7:14 PM
Private citizens can't really caarry MGs in public in Israel unless they live on settlements or are reservists in the military (which is just about everyone).

I'm fine with the idea of background checks and denying violent (and some non violent) felons from owning firearms with the potential for expungement of their record after a certain amount of time (depending on the case). Other than that, if I want an M2 .50BMG machine gun, I don't see why I shouldn't have it.

CitaDeL
11-26-2007, 7:22 PM
Is it reasonable to allow private citizens to carry MG's in public like Israel's citizens do?

So what are reasonable limitations on the 2A, besides keeping weapons away from violent felons? I tend to lean toward Ted Nugent and his opinion about the 2A. I realize that the framers only knew about single shot muzzle loaders, but I don't think they were so short sighted that they couldn't conceive of improvements in firearms technology. Tell me what you think.

Reasonable limitations?

Well, they happen to be outlined in the 2A. Whatever you can keep and bear.

I believe if you can afford it, you can maintain it, and can carry it there should be no limitation on what you can own or use. Machine guns, "assualt weapons", sniper rifles- okay. Tactical nuclear weapons, not so much.

Piper
11-26-2007, 7:29 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking small arms for self defense. Crew served weapons like a 105 howitzer and anti tank weapons and tactical nukes, I think are beyond what the framers intended the 2A to protect.

M. D. Van Norman
11-26-2007, 7:33 PM
For the love of Oliver Wendell Holmes, you can yell “fire” in a crowded theater, if the theater really is on fire!

The Second Amendment is a limitation on the government. :)

just4fun63
11-26-2007, 7:33 PM
I'm cool with instant background checks, no guns for felons or the insane and requiring some instruction before allowing "shall issue carry permits". A permit should be just like a drivers license valid, in all fifty states but you need to prove you can drive before you get one.

Muzz
11-26-2007, 7:46 PM
Open or concealed carry...at will. ANYTHING that soldiers get should be available from your local FFL (small arms-wise). Training for anything that soldiers get trained for should be open to the public for training (for a fee, of course, unless you're enlisted). Surplus weapons available thru gov't sales after the military is through with them. Do this and, as President Lincoln once said, a foreign army will "never make a track on the Blue Ridge."

Crime will go down too...

moulton
11-26-2007, 7:55 PM
I dont think that someone that is convicted of buying 25 packs of cigs in another state and brings them back to another state should loose their RKBA
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=70355&highlight=cigarette+felony

Solidmch
11-26-2007, 8:21 PM
If SCOTUS rules in the right way, I think the Brady Bunch will be looking at the thirteenth ammendment to strip peoples rights. If it was up to them, wreckless driving convictions will strip people of there rights, followed by jaywalking and littering.:rolleyes:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Gator Monroe
11-26-2007, 8:25 PM
Citizenship ! :eek:

bohoki
11-26-2007, 8:52 PM
its hard to say since the second amendment doesn't specifically mention firearms
so swords,nunchucks,ninjastars,ballisticknives,

i think the limit should exclude high explosives weapons such as mines grenades rpgs bullets containing explosive charges should be controlled

there should be no limit on caliber diameters ,barrel lenghts stocks on handguns

dustoff31
11-26-2007, 9:09 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking small arms for self defense. Crew served weapons like a 105 howitzer and anti tank weapons and tactical nukes, I think are beyond what the framers intended the 2A to protect.


Yep, if we ever need this stuff we can do do what the framers did, steal/capture it from the bad guys.

AJAX22
11-26-2007, 9:23 PM
The second ammendment protects all armerments,

rocket launchers, artilery, nukes etc are ordinance not armerment, so probably are not protected.

like dustoff31 said, we can get the big stuff if we need it ;)

hoffmang
11-26-2007, 9:25 PM
I agree with much above so I'll just second it.

-Gene

Piper
11-26-2007, 9:46 PM
I remember buying my AR7 (made by Charter Arms at the time) from The Broadway in West Covina back in 1974. I paid $45.00 for it. Ahhhh those were the days.

Solidmch
11-26-2007, 9:49 PM
I find it very interesting that the 13th has two limiting clauses, whereas the 2nd has none:


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Pderhaps the law means what it says, and the 2nd Shall not be infringed?

A related question, is should the sale of of firearms be restricted to FFL or should any store be able to sell them?


Excellent point. I bet the argument comes up 5 years or so after SCOTUS rules that the Second Ammendment means that the people have a individual right to bear arms.

5968
11-26-2007, 9:58 PM
Reasonable limitations?

Well, they happen to be outlined in the 2A. Whatever you can keep and bear.

I believe if you can afford it, you can maintain it, and can carry it there should be no limitation on what you can own or use. Machine guns, "assualt weapons", sniper rifles- okay. Tactical nuclear weapons, not so much.


I'm with you on this one! The 2A is meant so the average person could take up arms to over throw a tyrannical goverment. When it was written, the people could own anything the military could. It kept them on a fair playing field. Technology has advanced alot since then, so to say that the same musket they used is all you need in todays times is absurd. The military has advanced their weapons and so should the people. Just my 0.02

bulgron
11-26-2007, 11:24 PM
I always thought that "well-regulated" meant "trained in the use of". So from that perspective, I think the state has a legitimate ability to make sure anyone keeping and bearing arms knows how to both keep and bear them. That is, if you think the right way to store grenades is to just chuck them into a dirty, wet corner of your basement, well, the state ought to have the right to tell you to knock it the hell off.

Some of that stuff can get downright unstable if it isn't handled properly.

In similar fashion, I have no problem with someone owning a full auto machine gun, so long as the person has been trained in the use and maintenance of the thing, and has demonstrated both to a reasonably impartial trainer.

As for training, I think that training requirements should be no worse than what is required of professionals who use those arms. So if you're going to carry around a sidearm, you ought not to have to shoot any better than the local cops. If you're going to have full auto equipment, then your weapons skills should have to be no better than what the U.S. Army (or state militia) requires of it's combat soldiers. This keeps the brady bunch from setting testing requirements that can not be passed by mere mortals.

Ditto with the keeping and bearing portion of this. If you have a sidearm commonly used by the professional police, then you ought to be free to store it and carry it anywhere and in anyway that the professional police can. I'm willing to agree that the cops can carry their arms in a few places the common citizen can't -- the precinct house, for example. But these exceptions should be very limited and sharply defined.

In essence, the 2A to me means that the U.S. citizen can put him or herself on the exact equal footing as the professional armed forces of the state. So if an employee of the state can do it, then so can I. And I shouldn't have to be skilled any better than the minimum testing requirements of those personnel either.

Outlaw Josey Wales
11-27-2007, 12:57 AM
The Second Amendment is a limitation on the government. :)


Indeed.

KenpoProfessor
11-27-2007, 2:30 AM
I always thought that "well-regulated" meant "trained in the use of". So from that perspective, I think the state has a legitimate ability to make sure anyone keeping and bearing arms knows how to both keep and bear them. That is, if you think the right way to store grenades is to just chuck them into a dirty, wet corner of your basement, well, the state ought to have the right to tell you to knock it the hell off.

Some of that stuff can get downright unstable if it isn't handled properly.

In similar fashion, I have no problem with someone owning a full auto machine gun, so long as the person has been trained in the use and maintenance of the thing, and has demonstrated both to a reasonably impartial trainer.

As for training, I think that training requirements should be no worse than what is required of professionals who use those arms. So if you're going to carry around a sidearm, you ought not to have to shoot any better than the local cops. If you're going to have full auto equipment, then your weapons skills should have to be no better than what the U.S. Army (or state militia) requires of it's combat soldiers. This keeps the brady bunch from setting testing requirements that can not be passed by mere mortals.

Ditto with the keeping and bearing portion of this. If you have a sidearm commonly used by the professional police, then you ought to be free to store it and carry it anywhere and in anyway that the professional police can. I'm willing to agree that the cops can carry their arms in a few places the common citizen can't -- the precinct house, for example. But these exceptions should be very limited and sharply defined.

In essence, the 2A to me means that the U.S. citizen can put him or herself on the exact equal footing as the professional armed forces of the state. So if an employee of the state can do it, then so can I. And I shouldn't have to be skilled any better than the minimum testing requirements of those personnel either.



DING DING DING DING DING. This post, FTW.

If you can afford it, you can have it, but when you present a threat to another's rights, that's where yours end. RPG's, rockets, hand grenades, mines, and all other things that go big boom have to be handled and stored correctly. But owning them is still an individual's RIGHT. The idea of the 2nd was to keep the citizen on the same ground as their military counterpart.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Army
11-27-2007, 3:17 AM
The BOR outlines the rights of the US CITIZEN. The rest of the Constitution outlines the limits of the Federal Government.

aileron
11-27-2007, 5:28 AM
Yeah, I'm thinking small arms for self defense. Crew served weapons like a 105 howitzer and anti tank weapons and tactical nukes, I think are beyond what the framers intended the 2A to protect.

Actually there is an article in a Boston Gazette about a cannon maker having his cannons confiscated in 1775 by the Brits, and the people were pissed. I'll try to find the source. Its hilarious to read because you realize, Limitations on rights just wasn't a concept to them.

Piper
11-27-2007, 6:51 AM
I always thought that "well-regulated" meant "trained in the use of". So from that perspective, I think the state has a legitimate ability to make sure anyone keeping and bearing arms knows how to both keep and bear them. That is, if you think the right way to store grenades is to just chuck them into a dirty, wet corner of your basement, well, the state ought to have the right to tell you to knock it the hell off.

Some of that stuff can get downright unstable if it isn't handled properly.

In similar fashion, I have no problem with someone owning a full auto machine gun, so long as the person has been trained in the use and maintenance of the thing, and has demonstrated both to a reasonably impartial trainer.

As for training, I think that training requirements should be no worse than what is required of professionals who use those arms. So if you're going to carry around a sidearm, you ought not to have to shoot any better than the local cops. If you're going to have full auto equipment, then your weapons skills should have to be no better than what the U.S. Army (or state militia) requires of it's combat soldiers. This keeps the brady bunch from setting testing requirements that can not be passed by mere mortals.

Ditto with the keeping and bearing portion of this. If you have a sidearm commonly used by the professional police, then you ought to be free to store it and carry it anywhere and in anyway that the professional police can. I'm willing to agree that the cops can carry their arms in a few places the common citizen can't -- the precinct house, for example. But these exceptions should be very limited and sharply defined.

In essence, the 2A to me means that the U.S. citizen can put him or herself on the exact equal footing as the professional armed forces of the state. So if an employee of the state can do it, then so can I. And I shouldn't have to be skilled any better than the minimum testing requirements of those personnel either.

I'm in complete agreement with you on this one. But I'm thinking that since the government placed the restrictions on citizens and created such a stigma about gun ownership that it discouraged most of our neighbors to not keep or practice with their personal arms, that it now becomes governments responsibility to make available training facilities. So that means building range facilities with public access. Whether it's an indoor or outdoor range is up to the government body to decide. And for safety purposes, each range should be manned with a range master and appropriate range personnel during the time that the ranges are open. I also think that access should be made free, just like public parks since our taxes already pay for them.

dustoff31
11-27-2007, 7:10 AM
I'm in complete agreement with you on this one. But I'm thinking that since the government placed the restrictions on citizens and created such a stigma about gun ownership that it discouraged most of our neighbors to not keep or practice with their personal arms, that it now becomes governments responsibility to make available training facilities. So that means building range facilities with public access. Whether it's an indoor or outdoor range is up to the government body to decide. And for safety purposes, each range should be manned with a range master and appropriate range personnel during the time that the ranges are open. I also think that access should be made free, just like public parks since our taxes already pay for them.

I agree with you in principal, but this could be a slippery slope as well. Could/would they ban certain weapons on public (govt) ranges. i.e., "You can own that SAW, but you won't shoot it here? At what point would the use of govt facilities/personnel/training cause us to become the organized militia?

Scarecrow Repair
11-27-2007, 7:18 AM
Perhaps the law means what it says, and the 2nd Shall not be infringed?

The major arguments over the second amendment lie in the words -- what do "bear", "keep", and "arms" mean? If you say it is obvious, then you haven't been paying attention.

Scarecrow Repair
11-27-2007, 7:19 AM
I agree with much above so I'll just second it.

-Gene

I'll third it.

Glock22Fan
11-27-2007, 8:19 AM
Citizenship ! :eek:

As a person who spent five years here as a legal resident (now a citizen), married to a US citizen and with a completely clean record, I resent people who think that I (at that time) and others like me should be denied the right to self defense.

Fortunately, the law is on my side. "The People" does NOT distinguish between citizens and legal residents (or non-legal residents either, for that matter).

The BOR outlines the rights of the US CITIZEN.

NO, IT DOESN'T! (see above) IT DEFINED THE RIGHTS OF "THE PEOPLE". Yes, I know I'm shouting, but this is a VERY imporant point.

FortCourageArmory
11-27-2007, 8:27 AM
NO, IT DOESN'T! (see above) IT DEFINED THE RIGHTS OF "THE PEOPLE". Yes, I know I'm shouting, but this is a VERY imporant point.

A hearty +1,000. THe Bill of Rights defines the rights of the people. It doesn't grant or establish them. Those rights came to all mankind from nature. The Bill of Rights is a limitation on goivernment activity.

Bizcuits
11-27-2007, 8:39 AM
I'm sure someone will have something negative to say about me, however I've never been a person who cared about Full Auto. I feel you pretty much reach the limit with it. It shouldn't be wide spread, it should be realistic to obtain if one so desires, but there should be an initial waiting period during your first purchase and perhaps a yearly fee like the SBR. This would keep some of the lessers from easily acquiring them. The main thing though comes down to training and knowledge. By restrictions, I refer simply to ensuring the person knows what they own and isn't one of the morons on youtube shooting himself with snake shoots.

I think Hellfires / Hellstorms offer enough of a FA ability. They should remain perfectly legal.

I also don't think there is a need for RPG's and AT4's. Sure there is the militia stand point. At the same time though, I don't want to see johnny jacka$s, getting drunk and firing one in my neighborhood.

If RPG's and AT4's were made legal, I'd want to see some massive restrictions on them, required annual training, and fee's up the ***. I wouldn't want them in the hands of a moron.


I think when you get into FA you need a few more restrictions, when you get into launched explosives you need a lot.

I don't really care much about the rest, I think it should all be legal. With open carry allowed for any non-violent criminal and CCW requiring an issuance of "Shall Issue". My belief of CCW requiring "SHALL ISSUE" a background check and issuance, because cops do encounter a lot of gangs and others, they need a way to figure out who is carrying concealed for good purposes or bad.

bulgron
11-27-2007, 9:54 AM
I'm sure someone will have something negative to say about me, however I've never been a person who cared about Full Auto.

Whether you personally care about a particular type of firearm is not relevant. What is relevant is whether you're willing to support others who want to own a particular type of firearm. If you aren't willing to support the 2A in total, then what makes you think other gun owners are willing to support your desires relative to firearms.

As an example, my hot button is concealed carry. Other have a hot button of hunting rifles. Sometimes people who hunt will argue that concealed carry shouldn't be allowed, and they use the usual bad and broken logic to justify their point of view. Fine. But if they won't support my right to bear (concealed) arms, what make them think I'm willing to support their right to walk around the countryside with a sniper rifle?

See how that works?

We either all stand together, or we all hang separately.


I feel you pretty much reach the limit with it. It shouldn't be wide spread, it should be realistic to obtain if one so desires, but there should be an initial waiting period during your first purchase and perhaps a yearly fee like the SBR.

What does a waiting period and yearly fees offer, other than an artificial barrier to entry? Are you telling me that in this day of networked databases, they can't figure out who the bad guys are and therefore keep them from purchasing lethal weapons with an instant background check? Of course they can.

Arguments for waiting periods have never made any sense to me. Please explain exactly what it is that you think they accomplish, because I'm genuinely puzzled as to their purpose.


This would keep some of the lessers from easily acquiring them.


Lesser? What the hell is a lesser?

Methinks I'm catching a hint of classism -- or is that racism -- in your post.


The main thing though comes down to training and knowledge. By restrictions, I refer simply to ensuring the person knows what they own and isn't one of the morons on youtube shooting himself with snake shoots.

I agree. If you argued for yearly refresher courses and skills testing at the nearest army base (for full auto weapons), I'd have no problem with that. But this talk about 'lessers' has me wondering what your real concern is.


I also don't think there is a need for RPG's and AT4's. Sure there is the militia stand point. At the same time though, I don't want to see johnny jacka$s, getting drunk and firing one in my neighborhood.

But the militia stand point is the fundamental point of the matter. You can't take a fundamental right and say, "Well, I'm going to support this only halfway." In for a penny, in for a pound.

As for Johnny Jackass, there is no question that irresponsible people are everywhere. The answer to this is training, training, training, and then serious jail time for anyone who misuses their arms. If the consequences are dire enough, the vast majority of people will handle their arms responsibly. I know, because drunk driving isn't nearly the problem it was back when I was coming up. And once upon a time, America's hunters had a problem with shooting one another while out in the field. But the NRA fixed that through excellent training programs and now hunting is one of the safest sports in America.

There is no reason to assume that Johnny Jackass is going to be anything more than an occasional problem, just as Drunken Idiots only occasionally lose control and drive through homes on the way home from the bar.

No, there's no way to make arms ownership and usage 100% safe. But then, nothing in life is 100% safe.



If RPG's and AT4's were made legal, I'd want to see some massive restrictions on them, required annual training, and fee's up the ***. I wouldn't want them in the hands of a moron.

What's with the fees, unless you equate poor people with morons? Is that what you're saying?

Because someone hasn't managed a measure of financial success in life, that must mean they're a Johnny Jackass who can't be trusted to defend their own life and the freedom of their country?

Is there a minimum bank account balance required to join the National Guard? Just curious.

I'm sure that isn't what you mean, but from your words it sure seems that that's what you're saying. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

bohoki
11-27-2007, 10:10 AM
I always thought that "well-regulated" meant "trained in the use of". So from that perspective, I think the state has a legitimate ability to make sure anyone keeping and bearing arms knows how to both keep and bear them. That is, if you think the right way to store grenades is to just chuck them into a dirty, wet corner of your basement, well, the state ought to have the right to tell you to knock it the hell off.
.

i thought well regulated meant well equipped because nothing is more lame than a mob with pitchforks and torches

they need to bring their guns

acousticmood
11-27-2007, 10:40 AM
As a person who spent five years here as a legal resident (now a citizen), married to a US citizen and with a completely clean record, I resent people who think that I (at that time) and others like me should be denied the right to self defense.

Fortunately, the law is on my side. "The People" does NOT distinguish between citizens and legal residents (or non-legal residents either, for that matter).



NO, IT DOESN'T! (see above) IT DEFINED THE RIGHTS OF "THE PEOPLE". Yes, I know I'm shouting, but this is a VERY imporant point.

And it limited the power of the Federal Government.

aileron
11-27-2007, 11:09 AM
As a person who spent five years here as a legal resident (now a citizen), married to a US citizen and with a completely clean record, I resent people who think that I (at that time) and others like me should be denied the right to self defense.

Fortunately, the law is on my side. "The People" does NOT distinguish between citizens and legal residents (or non-legal residents either, for that matter).


NO, IT DOESN'T! (see above) IT DEFINED THE RIGHTS OF "THE PEOPLE". Yes, I know I'm shouting, but this is a VERY imporant point.

I am totally in agreement that Inalienable rights have no bearing on ones citizenship.

So we have to always respect someones base human rights and their base inalienable rights. But that doesn't mean we have to sell a foreign person a firearm. There has to be some way of guaranteeing they are not some psychopath or foreign drug runner that wishes to purchase a few guns for smuggling into another country.

I am not suggesting barring people that are living here access to firearms. I'm suggesting they have to have some tie to the united states (Work visa, etc.) to be able to buy.

Also exporting their firearms home to their country of origin if those arms are illegal there shouldn't be allowed. The problem is it would be really hard once we open this can of worms to stop folks from walking across the border with a gun.

My only concern on this is mass smuggling of arms outside the US for criminal purposes.

Bizcuits
11-27-2007, 12:20 PM
I'm sure that isn't what you mean, but from your words it sure seems that that's what you're saying. Perhaps you'd like to clarify.

Actually I wrote a very long clarifaction, but after re-reading everything you wrote, I realize your simply a person looking for a fight. If you had read my post and not just instantly posted a reply on what you disliked, You'd of noticed I specifically said training was one of my biggest concerns.

Go fishing for a fight some where else... :rolleyes:

Piper
11-27-2007, 12:22 PM
Here is the way I see it. A firearm, be it a pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun, muzzleloader, semiauto, full auto, bolt action etc etc is a device or as some would have it, a tool. But however you define it, it's an inanimate object. That makes it no different than a car, plane, cigarette lighter or container for storing your favorite flammable liquid. Anything can be used to hurt or help. The name of the game when it comes down to a constitutional right is whether or not the person has a track record of abusing that right to the detriment of innocent people.

I have friends who are not U.S. citizens, but are as law abiding as anyone. I have no problem with a law abiding foreign national having a firearm providing they have a track record of being law abiding. However, there are certain violations of U.S. law that will make a foreign national ineligible to possess a firearm legally. One of those being legal status in the U.S., meaning if you are an illegal alien and you possess a firearm, you move from a misdemeanor to a felony, simple as that.

Glock22Fan
11-27-2007, 12:37 PM
But that doesn't mean we have to sell a foreign person a firearm. There has to be some way of guaranteeing they are not some psychopath or foreign drug runner that wishes to purchase a few guns for smuggling into another country.

I would hope that we would be just as careful that US citizens aren't psychopaths, drug runners or gun smugglers before selling them a firearm.

N6ATF
11-27-2007, 12:53 PM
However, there are certain violations of U.S. law that will make a foreign national ineligible to possess a firearm legally. One of those being legal status in the U.S., meaning if you are an illegal alien and you possess a firearm, you move from a misdemeanor to a felony, simple as that.

According to my AOJ professor a couple of years ago, you can own a gun legally if you're an illegal. Just as long as you follow the transport, storage, carry laws.

That seems retarded, because it's basically saying that the 2A allows invaders to arm themselves to be able to attack us from within.

dustoff31
11-27-2007, 1:53 PM
According to my AOJ professor a couple of years ago, you can own a gun legally if you're an illegal. Just as long as you follow the transport, storage, carry laws.

That seems retarded, because it's basically saying that the 2A allows invaders to arm themselves to be able to attack us from within.

It is against federal law to "sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a person....... who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States." Still looking for possesion by an IA.

OK, illegal to possess by an IA. 18 USC 44 ss922(g)(5)

aileron
11-27-2007, 4:43 PM
About the quote of Cannons in the Massachusetts's Gazette.


First, a little background...

Thomas Gage was a Major General for the British and after the repeal of the Stamp Act, peacetime administrative duties occupied him, except for the excitement after the Boston Massacre on March 5, 1770.

In June, 1773, Gage visited England on leave, General Haldimand commanding in his absence. He returned in May, 1774, with the additional title of governor of Massachusetts. He moved his headquarters to Boston, and his first task was to keep the port closed in punishment for the Tea Party. Friction increased, an illegal Provincial Congress was set up, and Gage's attempt to seize rebel ordnance hidden at Concord provoked the initial skirmish of the Revolution in April, 1775.
http://www.clements.umich.edu/Webguides/Arlenes/G/Gage.html

Okay so now you know a tiny bit about Cage roll back the clock four months and Cage has already seized powder, cannons, and arms. Plus because of this he has already tangled with the militia over recovering seized arms. Not only that he is denying having seized arms!!!

So Jan 5, 1775 opened with a meeting of Freeholders at Faneuil Hall chaired by non other than Samuel Adams.

In the Massachusetts Gazette notes of a the meeting held that they were resolving that the British


... roused the People to think of defending themselves and their Property by Arms, if nothing less could save them from Violence and Rapine...

... The next assertion is, that no mans property has been seized or hurt, except the Kings. Who need not enumerate all the instances of property seized; It is enough to say that a Number of Cannon, the Property of a respectable Merchant in the Town, were seized and carried off by Force."

It goes on to say that the British Government feels it is right in taking cannons from citizens because they were preparing to use them for insurrectionary purposes.

This is from the book A right to Bear Arms by Stephen P. Hallbrook, page 10.

So it was a merchant that owned the cannons but I doubt the people of Boston were requiring a permit for those cannons. I could be wrong.

AJAX22
11-27-2007, 4:47 PM
One slight point I'd like to make here is that I do feel there is an issue with foreign nationals being on US soil while armed.

Its not that they should be denied the right to self defense, I just feel that they should have to get permission (easily granted shall issue) before they bring weapons onto U.S. soil.

Its just polite to ask before you bring guns into someone else's house.

Non citizen individuals who are living in the U.S. who are not foreign nationals (have renounced citizenship to former country, or are in the process of obtaining U.S. citizenship) should not be subjected to restriction.

I do realise that this would have to be more of a suggestion than a hard and fast rule of law, but it does seem like there could be problems with armed foreign nationals.... historically its been an issue a few times ;)

artherd
11-27-2007, 9:16 PM
The framers of the BOR knew about large cannons with grape-shot that could devastate an entire village in a single shot. They did not restrict those.

The 2A restrictions on possession of any weapon could be equated to banning VOCAL CORDS because they *might* be used to yell 'Fire" in a crowded room.

The kind of restrictions that case law supports on Arms, are probally limited to WHERE I may fire my rocket launchers with and without permits, and under WHAT PREVAILING WINDS (if any) may I test my atom bomb?

Not wether I can own any of the above.
-Ben.


I'm sitting here listening to NRA News and I'm wondering, to what extent do proponents of the Second Amendment think the 2A should be limited ? I don't want to do a poll, I'm just interested in your opinions.

Contemporary scholars are saying that this right existed before the BOR so to me that pretty much says that no limitations should be placed on this right. However, free speech existed before the BOR but we say that you can't yell FIRE in a theatre or for that matter liable or slander a person. Then there is the right to peacfully assemble, however citizens are required under certain circumstances to obtain a permit when excercising this right. Is it reasonable to allow private citizens to carry MG's in public like Israel's citizens do?

So what are reasonable limitations on the 2A, besides keeping weapons away from violent felons? I tend to lean toward Ted Nugent and his opinion about the 2A. I realize that the framers only knew about single shot muzzle loaders, but I don't think they were so short sighted that they couldn't conceive of improvements in firearms technology. Tell me what you think.

AJAX22
11-27-2007, 9:36 PM
Thats a very valid point Ben,

Taking it one step further, most ships flying american flags were under private ownership with no restriction as to size or type of armermant, and the ships were the tactical equivelent of a modern day aircraft carrier (allowed a country the ability to project force overseas)

If american merchentmen could have afforded a man-o-war there would have been no legal reason for them not to have one.

Piper
11-27-2007, 9:47 PM
The framers of the BOR knew about large cannons with grape-shot that could devastate an entire village in a single shot. They did not restrict those.

The 2A restrictions on possession of any weapon could be equated to banning VOCAL CORDS because they *might* be used to yell 'Fire" in a crowded room.

The kind of restrictions that case law supports on Arms, are probally limited to WHERE I may fire my rocket launchers with and without permits, and under WHAT PREVAILING WINDS (if any) may I test my atom bomb?

Not wether I can own any of the above.
-Ben.

I suppose this begs the question, did people actually keep the most powerful weapons known to man at the time at home? Or did they just have small arms for everyday use, like hunting and self defense? I know merchant ships maintained some form of heavy weapons to deal with attack from pirates, but was that due to licenses issued to them from their respective governments? Of course there was legal Piracy in the form of Privateers, but again that was upon being comissioned by their respective governments to carry out those kind of operations. Of course you had mercenaries, like the Hessions, but did they get their cannons from the King or were they theirs. Getting back to our government of the day, I know there is an example of the british attempting to seize cannons from someone who made them, so how is that applicable to today? I know that a private person can own a cannon or replica that is from 1898 or earlier, and I know that a gatlin gun is legal to possess, but should SCOT US rule that the 2A is an individual right, how does that work if someone wants to own a 105? It's all hypothetical, but it's relevant to the thread.

DrjonesUSA
11-27-2007, 10:00 PM
The Second Amendment is a limitation on the government. :)

This guy nailed it: the GOVERNMENT is restricted by the Second Amendment, NOT THE PEOPLE.

Governments, most especially ours, HAVE NO RIGHTS. WE, THE PEOPLE, DELEGATE certain powers and responsibilities to them, but governments do not, can not and should not have ANY RIGHTS.

dustoff31
11-27-2007, 10:09 PM
I know that a private person can own a cannon or replica that is from 1898 or earlier, and I know that a gatlin gun is legal to possess, but should SCOT US rule that the 2A is an individual right, how does that work if someone wants to own a 105? It's all hypothetical, but it's relevant to the thread.

Not sure about 105s off the top of my head, but 75mm pack howitzers and 37mm anti-tank guns are C&Rs. With a C&R license and a Form 4, you can have them shipped right to your door.

Piper
11-27-2007, 10:19 PM
Not sure about 105s off the top of my head, but 75mm pack howitzers and 37mm anti-tank guns are C&Rs. With a C&R license and a Form 4, you can have them shipped right to your door.

Cool! How hard is it to get a license? As for government being limited, now if we as citizens actually took this seriously, things might change.

ryang
11-27-2007, 10:25 PM
Yeah, I'm thinking small arms for self defense. Crew served weapons like a 105 howitzer and anti tank weapons and tactical nukes, I think are beyond what the framers intended the 2A to protect.As another poster responded, the answer to this is "nope".

Back in the 1800s, civilians had access to better weapons than the military. Civilians weren't encumbered by logistics/procurement rules that required time to evaluate new/better equipment, and wealthy individuals could afford to buy them.

"The right to keep and bear arms" did not mention firearms, muskets, or any single category of "arms". Merchants could (and did) outfit their sailing vessels with the latest in heavy weaponry, all privately owned and operated.

So what does that mean in present-day terms? Simple: regardless of tech advances, the founding fathers meant individuals should have access to any class of arms (including nuclear) they can afford.

This begs the question how should you regulate hand grenades, exocets and stingers? Personally I favor the car analogy the gun control advocates use. Have something equivalent to a driver's license with different classes of weapons. If you want a Class 5 munition you have to pass a written and practical test and most importantly, carry appropriate liability insurance in case of accidents. The cost of that insurance helps prevent "bad risk" people from getting toys they shouldn't be playing with.

Interesting aside: There is a (very rich) guy in Portola Valley, CA whose hobby is restoring tanks. One of the tanks he owns is a fully functional M1 Abrams tank. He also has live rounds for its main gun. He's the only private citizen in the states who can make that claim.

dustoff31
11-27-2007, 10:36 PM
Cool! How hard is it to get a license? As for government being limited, now if we as citizens actually took this seriously, things might change.

The C&R license is easy, so is the ATF Form 4, the problem is getting the permit from CA DOJ, you know the ones they won't issue. Hopefully, that will change soon.

Ammo is the catch, each round is a destructive device and thus more paperwork and tax stamps. A PITA and a lot of money, but quite doable, at least in free America.

DrjonesUSA
11-27-2007, 10:37 PM
This begs the question how should you regulate hand grenades, exocets and stingers? Personally I favor the car analogy the gun control advocates use. Have something equivalent to a driver's license with different classes of weapons. If you want a Class 5 munition you have to pass a written and practical test and most importantly, carry appropriate liability insurance in case of accidents. The cost of that insurance helps prevent "bad risk" people from getting toys they shouldn't be playing with.

That is precisely the problem, however; the cost of insurance can be so expensive as to preclude anyone but ultra-wealthy people from owning those arms.
OR the tests could be so ridiculously complex that no one could pass them.

Etc. etc.....

Interesting aside: There is a (very rich) guy in Portola Valley, CA whose hobby is restoring tanks. One of the tanks he owns is a fully functional M1 Abrams tank. He also has live rounds for its main gun. He's the only private citizen in the states who can make that claim.

Ok, how is this possible and where did you hear of it? I thought it was completely a big no-no for mere civilians to own functional military equipment such as tanks, planes, etc, particularly ones that are currently in our arsenal....please explain!!! :)

dustoff31
11-27-2007, 10:47 PM
Ok, how is this possible and where did you hear of it? I thought it was completely a big no-no for mere civilians to own functional military equipment such as tanks, planes, etc, particularly ones that are currently in our arsenal....please explain!!! :)

I've heard of this guy. He does have a few armored vehicles, possibly with functional main guns. I can't imagine DOJ issuing DD permits for live rounds. Then again, he supposedly does have megabucks, and you know, money talks.

N6ATF
11-27-2007, 11:22 PM
It is against federal law to "sell or otherwise dispose of a firearm to a person....... who is illegally or unlawfully in the United States." Still looking for possesion by an IA.

OK, illegal to possess by an IA. 18 USC 44 ss922(g)(5)

Wish I had saved the e-mail debate off the SDCCD server.

artherd
11-28-2007, 1:20 AM
So what does that mean in present-day terms? Simple: regardless of tech advances, the founding fathers meant individuals should have access to any class of arms (including nuclear) they can afford.

This begs the question how should you regulate hand grenades, exocets and stingers?

It will be largely self-regulating. Possibly regulate the materials themselves (ie, lead, uranium and other metals are controlled regardless of weather they're in nukes or bullets or fishing lures.) This MIGHT be OK. Any furthur regulation is probally unlawful and unnessecary.

No punk gangabanger is going to drop $7million on a nuke (or $300k on a tank for that matter). Anyone who is is going to have something to loose.

Interesting aside: There is a (very rich) guy in Portola Valley, CA whose hobby is restoring tanks. One of the tanks he owns is a fully functional M1 Abrams tank. He also has live rounds for its main gun. He's the only private citizen in the states who can make that claim.

Is his name Tony?

Army
11-28-2007, 4:08 AM
Jaques Littlefield (heir to a huge mining fortune) is the guy that owns the Pony Track Ranch in Portola that collects, rebuilds, and plays with tanks....lots of them. Among dozens of others, he has restored a Canadian M4 to full operational status, and M551 Sheridan. I do believe he recently got a Soviet T34 up and running. He does not own an M1 Abrams, as the armor is still highly classified. But he does have an M1 Sheridan of Israeli fame.


Also, Mike Dillon of reloading fame, owns and operates the ONLY civilian owned fully armed jet fighter (T34). He has been granted permission a few times, to make gun runs at the China Lake bombing center in California.

Personally speaking...these guys are living the 2nd Amendment!

aileron
11-28-2007, 5:32 AM
This guy nailed it: the GOVERNMENT is restricted by the Second Amendment, NOT THE PEOPLE.

Governments, most especially ours, HAVE NO RIGHTS. WE, THE PEOPLE, DELEGATE certain powers and responsibilities to them, but governments do not, can not and should not have ANY RIGHTS.

Yup, its amazing that the argument even comes up. The BOR restricts gov, so how can we say it restricts the people, yet we are having that argument in the courts, and they seem to ignore it while making their argument about the collective right which would be a restriction on the people.

Rights are not collective, they are individual in nature. They are not enumerated. They exist in nature.

dreamerof1
11-28-2007, 10:11 AM
Ok, how is this possible and where did you hear of it? I thought it was completely a big no-no for mere civilians to own functional military equipment such as tanks, planes, etc, particularly ones that are currently in our arsenal....please explain!!! :)

<<hijack>>

According to the tour guide ALL main guns are permanently disabled before importation/retirement and there are NO live rounds on the premisis. There's a funny story, though, about the first time they tried to get a trainer SCUD through customs.

When I was there they had a rusted hulk that was designated XM-XXX (don't remember what the XXX was) that they said was an early development prototype for the M1 Abrams. (eta:looks like it was an XM-1 which was a working test bed during development) They also had an M1 trainer, but nothing fully functional. I think I have pics of both on my camera at home. I'll post them later if I can find them.

It is an incredible tour. They actually encourage you to get up and climb on/in the vehicles. Best of all the tour is free (and sometimes led by Jacques himself).

ETA: Link to their official inventory (http://www.milvehtechfound.com/inventory/biglist.html)

<</hijack>>

ryang
11-29-2007, 7:44 PM
According to the tour guide ALL main guns are permanently disabled before importation/retirement and there are NO live rounds on the premisis.Funny how you can lie to people by telling them the truth. :) What the tour guide said is, of course, correct--import requires "permanently" disabling the main gun. But on their website they mention having ten tanks restored to "factory new" which only require loading munitions before going into battle. As for the "no live rounds on premises", wouldn't it make sense to store them in a secure vault elsewhere?

I'm dissapointed to hear they don't have a working M1 Abrams though. I liked the idea of one in private, albeit very wealthy, hands.