|
National 2nd Amend. Political & Legal Discussion Discuss national gun rights and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel. |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#641
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Well, this should help: https://lmgtfy.app/?q=how+to+copy+and+paste+text I'll be happy to explain further if that (somehow) isn't enough.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#642
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
What you claim as "what Heller says" is based solely on interpolation of Scalia's use of certain cases which, in part or in whole, included bans on concealed carry at the state level. What you fail to acknowledge/accept is that Scalia repeatedly and specifically in Heller declares that his use of those cases is in relation to how they addressed militia service and how those cases illustrate that the right itself does not necessitate service in the militia. In other words, Scalia overtly declares, in Heller, that he does NOT address 'carry' in the cases cited beyond noting that such is what the case was in part or in whole, about. Thus, what you proffer as the "default exercise" is a gross misreading of Heller and an interpolative exercise rather than a direct reading of Heller. If the cases are the definitive, authoritative sources, then how can you declare... Quote:
Quote:
This is why I and many others suspect your justification is always "read Heller," without ever providing a direct quote from Heller, despite numerous and constant requests (and demands, including from TPTB) for you to produce such. The cases/references Scalia cites specifically related to the form/manner of 'carry' revolve around the idea that... Quote:
Isn't that what the author of the piece posted at The Federal Society was conveying? Isn't that precisely what I have said? "Manner of carry" can be regulated so long as some form of "carry" is available? Not contingent on one or the other; but, "some form available." We read Heller. We quoted from Heller. Quoted were direct, definitive statements from the majority decision, on point as regards what the "default exercise" of the right is. What Scalia acknowledged, later in Heller, was... Quote:
On the other hand, what you are doing is PRECISELY what Scalia specifically said in Heller (in the above quote) should NOT be done. (Note what I highlighted in the quote.) You have taken their "incomplete historical analysis" and turned it, through interpolation, into the "full scope" of the right to bear (carry) as the default exercise. In other words, you have not only turned the declared "default exercise" in Heller on its head (taking it from a general right "to bear" and declaring it to be a specific manner of carry), you have done what Heller explicitly said not to do in declaring that Heller addressed what it deliberately went out its way not to address. As has been observed, Scalia was very overt that Heller did not address the scope of the right beyond it being an individual right to keep and bear. The accepted/acceptable limitations (or, conversely, the expansiveness of the liberties) would have to be determined in future cases; i.e., they were not determined in Heller. Once again, THAT is what Heller actually says. Simply, ad nauseam, repeating "Heller says" and "read Heller" and even providing links to the case in general, but with no quotes or direct, line references to support your contentions, isn't the same as actually having read it yourself or demonstrating that you actually understand what it says, let alone demonstrate knowledge of what it actually says. |
#643
|
|||
|
|||
Well I'll be damned. Mr Rodent finally posted at least a single sentence that most can agree with.
Quote:
Because "We the People" see SCOTUS itself as the "actual authority". And Mr Rodent as trying to position himself as an "authority". Even though, NOT ONCE has he supported any premise of his, with an actual; Quote:
|
#645
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
In Chrome, the 3 vertical dots in the upper right hand corner of the screen. Click and "Find" will be on the pull down menu. In FireFox, it'll be the three horizontal bars in the upper right hand corner of the screen. Click and "Find In Page" will be on the pull down menu. I don't know about Edge, Opera, etc. |
#646
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Interpreting or reinterpreting can be illustrated by the courts deeming that "sex" now also includes "gender" even though there is no such indication anywhere in the law. In essence, interpretation is "whole cloth" with no other support except "because we say so." Clarification can be shown by the SCOTUS examining why there are things like "prefactory clauses" and the use of such in that particular instance. It is the exact opposite of the above because it uses the constructs of language and grammar as the basis for it's reasoning and application instead of personal/consensus opinion/belief. Quote:
I also think it's beneficial to understand that judicial decisions on what the law "is", isn't supposed to be subject to the changing winds of society. If society doesn't like a particular law, then they are free to change it as long as that change is within the constraints imposed upon said society. (ie; the Federal and State Constitutions.) Quote:
Quote:
__________________
Some random thoughts: Somebody's gotta be the mole so it might as well be me. Seems to be working so far. Evil doesn't only come in black. Life is like a discount bakery. Usually everything is just what you ordered. But, occasionally you come face to face with an unexpected fruitcake. Surprise! My Utubery |
#647
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Quote:
That is your defense of the specific you claimed... Quote:
You 'paraphrased' what they said by somehow determining they said that the natural exercise of the right is open carry, despite repeated use of the word "natural" in the decision as it relates to meaning, interpretation, and right of self-defense (as quoted above), not in relation to manner of carry; all while never overtly condemning concealed carry while citing open carry as the right (though specifically citing one reference noting it as controversial at the state level). To do that, you, once again, ignored the fact that Scalia cited the cases as they related to service in the militia and individual rights, specifically declaring that the Court was not interested in determining the scope of the right, including 'manner of carry.' (Remember, Scalia specifically cautioned not to confuse the reason for codification with the right itself.) Yet, somehow, despite direct citations/quotes, I misrepresent what was actually said?! You then go on to claim... Quote:
As to pages 39 & 40, why not? Because the first case cited has to do with blacks? Or, because Scalia, inconvenient to your argument, but consistent with mine states... Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
In State vs. Chandler, the court said... Quote:
What of Aymette v. State? Quote:
Quote:
As to page 54... Quote:
Once again, you are pushing an interpretation/interpolation as what Heller said as opposed to what Heller actually says and specifically references. I give you credit for providing page numbers this time; but, you have yet to establish your case as factually accurate. Further, you have yet to demonstrate that you know what Heller actually says as opposed to what you presume it means. Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-13-2021 at 8:38 AM.. |
#648
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Thanks again! |
#649
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Not only is this flatly incorrect, and as others have noted Heller doesn’t say this, it’s also misleading. The references here are specifically used to support the reading of the 2nd in pre-civil war legislation that the enumerated right was not tied solely to the Militia, but instead was an individual right. “D We now address how the Second Amendment was inter*preted from immediately after its ratification through the end of the 19th century…. 2. Pre-Civil War Case Law The 19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment universally support an individual right un* connected to militia service.” Heller, p32 & p37 We could go into p54 as well, but frankly you either are not discussing this in good faith, or are completely intractable. Either way I think continuing the discussion won’t be fruitful. To argue these examples support OC vs CC is erroneous at best and disingenuous at worst. I give you an “A” for persistence, though.
__________________
|
#650
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
You have a story and you're sticking to it. Okay. But, what we want to know is why your story is correct and virtually everyone else's version is wrong. Simply saying "you're wrong, SCOTUS said" is NOT proof. Show us where SCOTUS actually said it as opposed to you interpreting/inferring it. As I've said all along, I'm open to the idea that I have it wrong - IF - you can clearly show me where SCOTUS said what you claim they said. Thus far, you haven't done so and actually openly refused to do so; evidently content to declare that I and many others are simply 'wrong' and we should take it up with a SCOTUS who didn't say what you claim they said so far as we can discern. That's not teaching. That's not providing 'pointers.' That's... Last edited by TrappedinCalifornia; 06-13-2021 at 10:04 AM.. |
#651
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
No skin off my nose. You are welcome to your opinion, as indefensible as it is.
__________________
|
#654
|
||||
|
||||
Of course scotus will say concealed carry can regulated. Just like they would say open carry can be regulated.
The real question are, in a state that has essentially banned open carry and concealed carry is the only viable form of carry, is scotus going to kick the question the way the peruta en banc panel did, will they word their opinion so that open carry is the right, or will they say you have to allow some form of carry and the state may choose that form (where shall issue is the de facto form of carry open or concealed depending on the state). 1) Now that the court is 6-3, Scalia is dead, Kennedy is gone, Robert’s has no say, and it’s been 13 years since Heller, I find it highly unlikely they are going to take the case and kick it the way the peruta en banc panel did. If they wanted to wait for open carry case then they have just denied cert to avoid bad precedent, because it’s a 5.5-3.5 conservative court. They wouldn’t waste a high profile case only to avoid the question. 2) you’re high or have a traumatic brain injury to think scotus is going to tell NYC or LA or SF that they have to allow open carry. It’s simply not how scotus works. They do not push against norms that hard. It’s not their style and hasn’t been for hmmm about 125 years now. 3) scotus will come to the conclusion that traditionally open carry is the protected right because concealed carry was regulated at the time the 2A was ratified. However in today’s modern era, conceal carry is the most popular form of carry. Forcing states to issue conceal carry licenses to law abiding citizens would satisfy the right, and be consistent with the traditional idea that one form of carry can be regulated to the point that the right is “infringed” so long as another form of carry is allowed. Now regardless of what Heller says and how it was written in order to placate Kennedy so that the individual right could be the majority of a 4-4-1 court (the author is dead), and the noticeable change in court composition, ask yourself, given who scotus is and how they’ve ruled, which one of these scenarios is the most probable outcome? My point is, if you so far disconnected from scotus’s style that you think they are going to tell NYC that they have to allow open carry, how the hell do you possibly think anyone is going to buy the “open is the protected right” argument? |
#655
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you want to bullsyit that it wasn't a "real" open carry case it doesn't matter. The fact SCOTUS transformed a case that didn't say concealed carry into a concealed carry case means they can do that with EVERY OTHER CASE. If SCOTUS can't demand concealed carry then they can continue to dodge the question of open carry or even more broadly "bearing arms" because they already have. If SCOTUS can't mandate or make concealed carry satisfy the right they can deny bearing arms indefinitely with the powers and precedents they've already used. Literally the only case you can make is only the right to carry non-handguns is the right, and since NYSRPA asked about "carrying handguns outside the home for selfdefense" that is not protected. Of course that would contradict your oh so precious Heller protecting handguns...
__________________
Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-13-2021 at 12:46 PM.. |
#656
|
||||||
|
||||||
Quote:
SCOTUS is engaging in reinterpretation of the scope of the right's protection because the scope they come up with differs from, and is smaller than, the logical understanding of the scope of the right's protection that the founders held. The plain question is: does the 2nd Amendment protect battlefield weaponry? Well, the founders clearly understood that it did, because their weaponry that they privately held was battlefield weaponry, and they used it to good effect to win the American Revolution against their own government's standing army. Now SCOTUS is claiming that the protection of the right does not include battlefield weaponry. This is directly at odds with what the founders clearly believed. Not only does logic applied to the founders' situation lead to this conclusion, the founders went so far as to include the militia purpose into the 2nd Amendment, thus codifying a minimum purpose for that protection. But if one interprets the protection of the right to be independent of the stated purpose in the 2nd Amendment, then that violates Marbury v Madison's admonition that: Quote:
Quote:
The prefatory clause doesn't simply state "the militia" as the purpose for the 2nd Amendment protection. It states the security of a free State. That is the militia purpose, and that is the purpose that defines the minimum scope of the protection the 2nd Amendment affords. SCOTUS showed that the scope of the 2nd Amendment's protection includes something other than the stated militia purpose, that it also includes self-defense. But the way it did it is by disconnecting the militia purpose from the protection, and that is an invalid approach. Quote:
Quote:
See below for Bliss. Quote:
I used to believe that Bliss meant that the founding generation more likely than not understood concealed carry to be protected. But now that I'm aware of the history surrounding it, I no longer do. I only use it to point out that there was disagreement as to that. I don't know that it's possible to determine how much disagreement there was. It might have been minimal, or it might have been substantial. But clearly it wasn't so substantial as to prevent an alteration to the Kentucky constitution to negate Bliss.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 06-13-2021 at 2:14 PM.. |
#657
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
|
#658
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Similarly, on a Mac, command-f (hold the "command" key, which is the one with "command" and a weird squiggly symbol on the bottom row of the keyboard, and then press "f") will do the same.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#659
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
Given the narrow question at hand, I’ll think we are going to see something along the lines of “Reaffirm possession of firearms is an individual right, commonly used for personal protection. NY law allows for a permit to carry firearms outside the home, therefore they must accept ‘self defense’ as a valid ‘proper cause’ to issue the permit.” Period. There will be reference to the facts (conceal carry in this case) but it won’t affect the constitutionality of CC or OC, which will be left to regulate by the States. It may not even settle the question if ANY form of carry must be allowed. If we were all good to Santa last year, we might get a ruling that says the 2nd enshrines the right of individuals to carry outside the home- which would mean States would need to have SOME form of carry allowed or they are infringing on the right. Regardless, the State retains the ability to regulate nearly all manner and type of permit/permit less carry. That would be a bonus. In no instance will it address open vs concealed as the enumerated right. We’ll see. In any case, it’s going to be good news. How good will depend on how low your expectations are.
__________________
|
#660
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
If you open courts to being able to define any weapon as concealable, then they can and will define any firearm as concealable from being able to wear a trench coat to having it in a vehicle to disguising it as a bellhop's cart. Until you get into self-propelled artillery, which are military weapons and per Heller are not protected. One has to give Rabbit. Either Heller is not the end all be all of the 2nd amendment and, in fact, hopefully we get a ruling that overrules it and says yes, at least radiological dirty bombs are protected if not fission/fusion bombs as well as smaller trifles like killer drone swarms and anti-aircraft arrays and not-even-an-afterthought things like disguised pintle-mounted heavy machine guns in SUVs and trucks... Or courts have full sovereign authority and ability, and PROVEN HISTORY of being able to completely redefine away any "bear" and thus get possession taken too because the ability to carry/conceal them enters them into the nexus of interstate commerce and thus able to be banned (per Wickard/Raich reasoning). Sorry, either courts have full authority to destroy Bear in any reasonable way, or they have the ability to protect Concealed carry and are moving that route in NYSRPA. Or possibly both! But there's no reading at this point that courts HAVE to rule in favor of open carry or hear an open carry case when they can transform a question of law that explicitly left it open "carry outside the home" into a concealed carry question.
__________________
|
#661
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
It also means the court can come up with the answer it wants to issue first, and then transform the question into one that would result in that answer. We already know that courts engage in ex post facto justification of decisions (rather than using reasoning to arrive at a decision). Now they can take that a step further. Is the Supreme Court doing that here? Well, the Court had 4 months between the time of cert petition (12/17/2020) and time of grant with the changed question (4/26/2021). That's plenty of time for it to come up with a basic answer first (the details of which might take considerably longer to formulate), for which it can then change the question to match. But it's hard to really say if that's what has happened here. All I can say is that this opens the door wide for such games. I have to wonder if the Court has done something like this before ...
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 06-13-2021 at 3:21 PM.. |
#662
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
|
#663
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Judges aren't legislators they can't water down rulings because New York people will go bananas. |
#664
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
B) LOL what planet have you been living on? Judges aren't suppose to, but that's all they've done since FDR. There's a great SCOTUS blog article that goes into this fact using numbers, but anyone who has been paying attention knows they always consider this. |
#665
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
They already ruled in Heller what can be regulated. it can't be ignored, the judges certainly will not ignore it. |
#666
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
We've been living in a corrupt SCOTUS does what they want until someone threatens them. Which FDR did and got what he wanted. Ironically Eisenhower was unwilling to after he appointed Warren and probably should have. I'd trade the Guatemala, Iran, or Cuba coups for a coup of Warren anyday.
__________________
|
#667
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
mrrabbit would say concealed carry won't be protected, but I suspect they took the case because concealed carry will be protected, that doesn't mean open carry can be banned. |
#668
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I mean... all anything means is what is said. The fact they haven't used the Privilege and immunity clause doesn't mean it's not valid or constitutional... it just means it doesn't matter. Open carry does not matter if it's not used or has no effect. Use it or lose it is the rule of muscle, politics is a power game of which your muscles need to work or else they atrophy...
__________________
|
#669
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
|
#670
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim*ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right”
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit |
#671
|
||||
|
||||
Am I?
Quote:
What exactly is the point of even raising the possibility that weapons like the M-16 may be banned, and that the presence of such bans would change nothing about the Court's interpretation of the right or the scope of its protection, unless the Court intends to uphold such bans in the first place? The Court here is using how they interpret the right or the scope of its protection to justify the fact that such bans, if they are to uphold them, would render the fit between the prefatory clause and the protection of the right nearly nonexistent. The Court here is anticipating this objection: "but your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment would render the militia powerless to fulfill the stated militia purpose!" And it is doing so by saying "yes, well, how we interpret the right and its protection is independent of whether or not that interpretation would render the militia unfit to fulfill its purpose". But that is precisely my objection here. Doing so renders the stated militia purpose effectless. And that is plainly disallowed by Marbury v Madison. -- If you nonetheless disagree with the above, then please explain your interpretation of what the Court stated in the above, and explain why they raised the specter of a ban on weapons like the M-16, and how the fit between the militia purpose and the protection of the right to arms can be arbitrarily bad through the Court's interpretation thereof, if the Court has no intention to even consider upholding bans on battlefield weaponry. Remember: if the militia cannot fulfill its stated purpose due to restrictions on it imposed by the government, then that contradicts the plain intent of the founders. The founders stated the militia purpose precisely because they wanted to ensure that the militia would always be able to fulfill it against all enemies of a free State. Among other things, that's what the Second Amendment is for. You simply don't bother to state a purpose for something you're creating unless you intend that purpose to always be fulfillable by that something. What in the world would be the point otherwise? To wax poetic or something?? One more thing: the litmus test of this is whether or not bans on battlefield weaponry would be upheld by the Court. If they uphold such bans then they will be going directly against the founders' intentions, period, because the founders intended the militia to always be able to fulfill its explicitly stated purpose.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 06-14-2021 at 3:07 AM.. |
#672
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Oh yeah? You tell me how effective the founders would have been against the British army if they didn’t have and use personally owned battlefield weaponry. You have to be daft to believe that the founders would agree with having their own personal battlefield arms banned. But that’s precisely what the Court is effectively claiming they’d be willing to uphold, even if they couched it in speculative terms. Suppose the U.S. right now were actually still a British colony. If you took the founders into the present day, and they had to fight a revolutionary war against the modern British military (presume for the moment that Britain would have the same standing as a world power now as they did back then), do you think they would want battlefield weaponry for that? Of course they would. You'd have to be a moron to think otherwise. And that is why battlefield weaponry was, and would still be, understood to be protected: because it's necessary to ensure the security of a free State. Ensuring the security of a free State isn't just about giving the sitting government pause, it's ensuring you can bring it to heel by force, or free yourself of it, if you have to. Because, you know, that's exactly what the founders did in their own back yard. Battlefield weaponry is a major requirement in a revolutionary war, and makes the difference between winning a revolutionary effort and losing it (there are other things that are necessary, but if you haven't the necessary weaponry then the effort is dead before it begins). Why else do you think we bring in battlefield weapons to support the faction that we want to win when there's some conflict in the world that we have some kind of stake in? You think we do it just for the fun of it?
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 06-14-2021 at 3:09 AM.. |
#673
|
||||
|
||||
Yes, wrong as ever. It is the chasm created by the modern developments, not a re-interpretation of the right by the court that creates the disconnect between the purpose announced in the first clause and the right that is announced in the second clause.
I do believe Scalia was less than clear, in the sense that balancing the right against modern tanks and bombers is not the same as balancing the right against any sort of bearable arms. Try reading the passage differently. First, although closing of the registration in 1986 is a slow rolling, de facto ban in my opinion, the fact is that M16s are NOT banned, just regulated under the NFA. Scalia was making an extreme example with ‘M16s and the like’ of how dangerously close we are to effective detachment of the prefatory clause from the right, only to say that the right nonetheless could NOT be reinterpreted. NOT. The positioning of the question of whether EVEN M16s MAY be banned, a restriction with which many Americans would agree or indeed believe to be true already, was only to highlight the effective disconnect created by actual modern technology. Then the court, to my delight and in a bit of a Louisiana Purchase moment, identified in the historical analysis of the right an intrinsic, individual right to self defense that stands alone from the purpose announced in the first clause.
__________________
www.christopherjhoffman.com The Second Amendment is the one right that is so fundamental that the inability to exercise it, should the need arise, would render all other rights null and void. Dead people have no rights. Magna est veritas et praevalebit Last edited by Maestro Pistolero; 06-14-2021 at 5:35 AM.. |
#674
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
By and large, the chasm between modern developments and the ability of the militia and private citizens to have them... is rooted firmly in government enforced infringement of the right. The developments of military arms in civilian hands was fatally crippled by NFA and with a few questions which I WILL answer that even I, going near full AnCap here, don't think are clear. Great, so what were the big developments that revolutionized warfare in WW1? Simply put, machine guns, artillery, and real-time communication. You can say grenades and other things were powerful new developments and that's true, but in true militia effectiveness, iirc 1/2 the casualties of WW1 were from artillery. Machine guns forever limited the ability of mass charge tactics, so that Pickett's charge disappears and all you have are Banzai charges (though that's in the future) or Gallipoli. Finally you have u-boats and international shipping. I consider aerial warfare small enough I'll deal with in ww2. This is the case for why machine guns are a militia necessity and forever changed warfare. Horses were basically made obsolete both in cavalry charges and as beasts of burden, but we're not being banned from cars and vehicles. Related to machine guns. Okay, so ski resorts actually in fact do have artillery... https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4846442 Actually upon closer reading, they were borrowing it, and in fact even ski resorts limited use of artillery was enough to stress the munitions stockpile. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna4846442 Others will point out with proper permitting you can own anything. I'm friends with a man who has designed and builds reusable NFA grenades where the spoon is the "receiver" and is going to reactivate an RPG. I'm perhaps a little blessed to know a bit more about this than most. The problem is... due to NFA and their destructive device regulation every munition requires the tax stamp in addition to all the paperwork. This makes the practical barrier to actually acquiring a sufficient stockpile of munitions, whether artillery shells or grenades or claymores to be too high for even private individuals. This is incredibly important because that's basically what makes artillery... artillery. This is NOT a natural development, or a sudden acceleration of technology. This is 1914 where artillery is the driving development and everything, in fact, is still legal. Farmers can still use dynamite on their farms. This is taken advantage of in a senseless mass killing in 1927 at Bath School, Michigan. https://infogalactic.com/info/Bath_School_disaster As for other WW1 developments, you of course have poison gas and trench brooms (short barreled shotguns). The use of poison gas of course is barely used in WW2 due to treaties agreeing to the ban of it in the European theater, though there is some allegations of use on the Eastern front, same as well-documented explosive bullets also banned and not being brought up here. The use of the short-barreled shotgun was considered by Germans to be similar to use of exploding bullets and protested against US use of them, but they were overruled by America which proceeded to keep using them. Miller famously bans the use of short-barreled shotguns as unsuitable for militia service which quite simply was wrong the day it was decided. As seen above, it was a preferred American weapon for close-in warfare in trenches, and can easily be analogized to urban warfare today. While use of Short barreled Rifles today has largely superseded them, systems like the masterkey SBS for locks and SBRs themselves are for increasing prevalence of armor. For a militia, a SBS makes exactly perfect sense for how cheap and prevalent they are, while perhaps not being as good as SBRs, they are field expedient. WW2 developments are where things get fascinating. In the inter-war period many countries in Switzerland and Sweden produced a number of anti-tank rifles because tanks were developed but not strategic or important in WW1. Interwar development let people know tanks needed to be opposed, and so very large 20mm rifles like the Lahti and the Solothurne are developed as crew-served anti tank weapons. Given their diameter, these are NFA items. However that's not an insurmountable barrier to register a singular weapon. The problem is the arms development. Simply... tank armor got thicker. Thick enough that simple rifles aren't going to pierce tanks. That's where recoilless rifles and bazookas and the like come in. See 2 paragraphs above. For fielding tanks, there are privately owned tanks, I have another friend who grew up driving some. The problem again, is that same limiting factor I keep hammering... explosives are too regulated and too expensive because both their expendable nature in addition to extra taxes and paperwork makes the actual functional usage of them useless. That's why you'll see plenty of cannons at Knob Creek but actual artillery was limited, and that issue is fatal. The fact is, explosives and area effect weapons are the crucial link that is missing. These WW1 developments are in most cases man portable and certainly unit and crew service. These infringements are directly tied to NFA. Finally you have u-boats, or submarines today. Private submersibles do exist, but ironically enough are in many ways more expensive than planes. James Cameron, Ghislaine Maxwell, Jeff Bezos, and Roman Abramovitch, and drug cartels are pretty much the private owners I can think of. This in addition to the expense and the lack of gain- unless you're running drugs or women, there's not much strategic usage that isn't nuclear-powered long endurance submersibles; and even then unless you're actively attacking shipping which again... requires explosives. Analyzing WW2 developments, we get cryptography, aerial bombing (yes yes, nuclear devices, but that literally only happened twice. Carpet bombing, firestorms, terror bombing, close air support, paratroopers, aerial reconnaissance, are all more common), When it comes to Cryptography we DID have a big fight in the 90's and we're heating up for another big crypto war and there's a ton of nefarious backdoor efforts by government to destroy this, but technically it's still legal. When it comes to bombing, well... my continual harping on explosives applies, as well as FAA screwing with hardmounted machine guns for CAS or dogfights. We have recreational skydiving, so in fact paratroopers is in fact quite doable aerial reconnaisance is being superseded with satellites and drones, but those are subject to government suppression and signal jamming respectively. Finally, we can look to the cutting edge of warfare, the Armenia-Azerbaijan war where explosive drones (RC, not quadcopter) were used to devastating effect and show the future of small unit warfare. Again... explosives. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...38b_story.html Mass manufacturing became simpler with truly set and forget interchangeable parts without tons of machining. Think sten guns. That genie is out of the bottle. So now we're just left with the super ridiculous wunderwaffen- atom bombs, v1/v2 rockets, chemical and biological warfare. I can argue for them... but to save space, let's make it brasstacks simple. Atom bombs haven't decided a war (Stalin was poised to invade Japan, and between Stalin and US invasion Japan wouldn't have been able to do anything and would have ceased in any recognizable form), v1 and v2 rockets are equivalent to missiles and between the drones, cheapened rocketry, and other things are main limiting factor is explosives. Chemical warfare has been claimed to have been used by Assad vs. civilians... but he's been winning just fine without it, and aside from Saddam gassing people and terror attacks, it simply isn't relevant. Biological warfare... that's way, way too big to get into. Another post entirely. Covid-19 makes this far too salient to cover in short form. So ultimately, I conclude it's explosives that matter. And wouldn't you know it! The Weather Underground took advantage of explosives availability, and largely due to revolutionary communists the ability to buy dynamite by farmers and normal people is basically gone. Tim McVeigh found a workaround, and the feds watered down commercially available ammonium nitrate in addition to more paperwork and more scrutiny. The fact is, government has had its hand completely in restricting this. My friend who makes Destructive Devices can't share his plans easily as antiterrorism legislation has made easy sharing and open source designs "terrorism". There probably WOULD be massive simplification and lowered cost, but government has actually abridged 1st and 2nd amendments to destroy the market from being able to solve the high cost of explosives and make militia usage and manufacture viable. These were government and policy choices, not "natural market mechanisms". Quote:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-whats-to-come TL: DR- the militia clause IS detached from actual protection of weapons because it was always explosives that mattered, not machine guns. Machine guns are fun and cool and certainly helpful and useful to militias. However, given a choice between brrrrrrt and kaboom for militia purposes, it's not even a question what should be protected and necessary. Machine guns are heavily regulated but still available and still usable to a decent degree. Destructive devices are simply not. Not even ski resorts and private corporations can own and operate them. Farmers can't properly remove stumps, and as I know many people who got burned out during California wildfires, stump grinding simply isn't as good, nor is poisoning stumps, as dynamite is. Wildlife management for states is even harmed when it comes to blowing beaver dams. For all intents and purposes, the militia effectiveness with destructive devices has been fatally flawed, and until there is a dramatic loosening of destructive devices we have, effectively, completely neutered the militia.
__________________
Last edited by lowimpactuser; 06-14-2021 at 10:07 AM.. |
#675
|
|||||
|
|||||
Quote:
The Court has made it clear how they're interpreting the right (or its protection). But that interpretation is incorrect if it fails to match how the founders clearly interpreted it. The way the Court interprets the right's protection (that the only arms that are protected are those "lawful weapons" that people held) bootstraps preexisting bans into Constitutionality. It also bootstraps into Constitutionality any bans on new kinds of weapons as long as those bans come into being before the weapons in question can be acquired by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. A person cannot possess a "lawful weapon" if the weapon in question was banned from the start, or "regulated" into obscurity like machine guns are, because such weapons are by definition not lawful (more precisely, "not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes"). This flies in the face of the entire point of the 2nd Amendment: to protect the natural right to keep and bear arms from the predations of government. So your contention here is that the founders believed that battlefield arms would not be protected by the 2nd Amendment? Because that's exactly what it would have to be for you to consider the Court's interpretation to be valid. Remember that the founders didn't bring just privately owned muskets and other small arms into the fight. They brought in their own privately owned artillery (cannons, explosives, and such). The claim you and the Court are making here is that the founders would have agreed to bans on the very weapons they used to win the American Revolution. I disagree with that very notion in the strongest possible terms. It is unthinkable to me that the founders were somehow the kind of dullards they'd have to be to agree to such a thing, and yet that's precisely what the Court, and you, are insisting upon. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Might the weaponry in question still be rarely possessed by the citizenry? Of course. But we know from history, at least, that machine guns weren't exactly uncommon before the NFA, and we know that it was typical for military issued weapons to be brought home after wars prior to the NFA. The NFA made such weapons uncommon. Through the Court's own reasoning, the NFA bootstrapped itself, and prospective outright bans on machine guns, into Constitutionality. But rare or not isn't the point of protecting arms. The point of protecting arms is so that, no matter how rare they might be, they can be available to the citizenry in the event they're needed by the citizenry to ensure the security of a free State. More precisely, to ensure that if they aren't available to the citizenry, it's not due to government restrictions or government action. Purpose is everything. The right itself is a preexisting natural one, but its protection in the 2nd Amendment is not. Its protection has a stated minimum purpose (self-defense adds to that, it doesn't replace it). The Court simply is not legitimately empowered to ignore that purpose, for if the Court is legitimately empowered to do that, then it is legitimately empowered to "interpret" the Constitution in arbitrary ways, up to and including declaring itself the entire ruling body over the country. Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 06-15-2021 at 4:20 PM.. |
#676
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
If the state has the ability to train and arm the militia for the purpose of maintaining the security of a free State, then there's no need for the militia to possess its own arms in order to maintain the security of a free State, and therefore there's no reason to call out the security of a free State as the reason to protect the right of individual citizens to keep and bear arms. And yet, the founders did state that very purpose as the reason for individual citizens to possess arms (and for such to be protected from the predations of government). So no, your claim here is nonsensical. The citizenry needs to be able to keep all weapons that are necessary for the security of a free State, precisely because it may be necessary to go up against any government, including state governments, in the process of maintaining the security of a free State. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. Last edited by kcbrown; 06-14-2021 at 11:44 AM.. |
#677
|
||||
|
||||
Do you believe access to NFA items is enough to satisfy this need for more effective weapons for militia use ?
|
#678
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
What I can say is that the NFA does prevent the militia from acquiring at least some of the arms that are necessary for it to be able to fulfill its stated purpose today. I recognize that there are other things that might prevent the militia from being able to acquire the necessary arms. The 2nd Amendment is intended to address only government restrictions. Whatever else there might be that would prevent the militia from acquiring the necessary arms, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure that the government isn't included in that.
__________________
The Constitution is not "the Supreme Law of the Land, except in the face of contradicting law which has not yet been overturned by the courts". It is THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, PERIOD. You break your oath to uphold the Constitution if you don't refuse to enforce unadjudicated laws you believe are Unconstitutional. The real world laughs at optimism. And here's why. |
#679
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#680
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
PEOPLE were ALWAYS recognized as sovereign and having rights that in fact could trump BOTH federal AND state power. YOU are trying to create a tyrannical entity that isn't tyrannical as long as it is a state. Or, to put it simply, YOU believe in monopoly government, just as long as it's a state enterprise. The founders very, very much disagreed with you. Quote:
Go ahead and find something that states that State power is fully irrevocably sovereign and neither federal nor tyranny against the people removes their legitimacy. Go ahead.
__________________
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|