Where and why would YOU put limits on RKBA?

[B Strong]

Of course the Founders wouldn't have wanted citizens to have the capability to take out tanks or large numbers of government soldiers....they insisted on one-on-one duels for honor's sake...
.

An ND, even with an MG, can only do so much.

Unskilled handling and use of HE is a whole other story, and having seen enough stupid human tricks with simple fireworks, the idea of two juicers buying military grade HE goodies otc makes me a little nervous.

[Meplat]

But "privateers" with personally owned ships of more power than anything the US GOVERNMENT had where employed. It's the whole letters of marque and reprisal thing. The founders had no problem with employing arms more expensive than the government could afford. In the 18th and 19th centuries the 'people' generally had access to better weapons than the government issued to it's troupes. Custer was outgunned at the Little Big Horn by native Americans armed with the original American assault rifle.

I suppose to fully answer the question you'd have to ask yourself what the biggest "arm" was around the year 1776.

On land: Cannon, Howitzers, and Mortars. That's it. Those are the "nukes" of the day.

At sea: 42 gun 3 masted ship. As the name implied, a ship of 42 guns, the biggest of which were 12 pound smoothbores. The Bonhomme Richard was the "Nimitz class" of it's day, the most powerful weapon in existence in the American arsenal. It should also be noted that this ship was vastly smaller than what you'd call a "ship of the line" thatthe brits had. America had no ships of the line, our largest was the frigate I just mentioned.

That's the sense of scale of destructive capability. A frigate like Bonhomme Richard could pull into a harbor, level a broadside at a town, and probably kill a bunch of people (if caught unawares) and level some houses. That's the extent of the most powerful weapon in America at the time.

It should be noted that this ship was owned by the Continental Navy and I don't believe "the people" had anything that could match it for one reason......cost of ownership.

[bigstick61]

Artillery was often essential for shipboard self-defense against pirates, criminals, and enemy vessels. Private citizens also owned artillery just in cae it was needed to fight the government as well as to contribute to local or state defense against enemies. This practice continued for a long time afterwards.

[Meplat]

So, the average American has no idea of the kill zone of a grenade? Even veterans? Many here are really, really, disappointing me! If you do not understand a weapon or it's use leave it the hell alone, but don't barr those who do from having it.

I read through this thread before posting to make sure that no one else had already took this stance, but I see that I am not alone.

I draw the civilian-legal line between fully-automatic weapons and grenades for the precise reason that rifles (even fully-automatic ones) are point weapons and you as the shooter have specific and direct control over each and every bullet that leaves the barrel - and as such you are responsible and accountable for each of those bullets. With proper training you should be able to pick out enemies from friendlies in a room and leave the good guys unharmed. However with a grenade there are pieces of shrapnel flying in random directions that you have no direct control over. Once that explosive device leaves your hand any number of factors can change (people can move into or out of harms way or the explosive could roll somewhere unintended) and you now have absolutely no control over it.

So, I believe anything that can be accurately aimed at a specific target without harming others standing nearby should be legal. It's the shooter's responsibility to pull the trigger at a speed that he remains in control of each bullet leaving the weapon. But how fast he pulls the trigger, or if he decides to use full-auto, is for the shooter to decide.

[bigstick61]

It's not like you see the typical owner of such weapons go out and shell towns or grenade stores or anything like that.

[Meplat]

Mitch, by the time there is a need to use anti-tank mines, tow missiles and grenades against a tyrannical government, it will be a Civil War between two or more Governments and their militaries.

Anything else is a terrorist cell. It's about the will of the people and the legality of the revolution. If you don't have the will of the people you have nothing but extremism. Look at the OKC bombers and associated goons. They thought they were using appropriate force against a tyrannical government.

BULL ****

[rolo]

BULL ****

Care to elaborate, Meplat?

[Meplat]

I submit that at the present time, the honor, traditions, and integrity of our standing forces is all that keeps us free. God help us when we have an officer corps that has been raised on the bull**** that is today's public school system.

[Surefire]

Anyone should be able to own any single type of firearm they wish. The only limits imposed should be on weapons that are explosive on a large scale (he grenade or bigger).

Agreed.

The only limits should be explosives (grenades, etc), and anti-aircraft / vehicle weapons that can blow things up or shoot things down. I wouldn't want to see any tweeker Yahoo being able to legally get grenades, anti-aircraft weapons, mortars, rocket launcers, etc.

Perhaps all firearms (including full auto) less than or equal to .700 Nitro Express should be legal?

[Meplat]

Care to elaborate, Meplat?

Sure. The Branch Davidians were not a government.

[B Strong]

So, the average American has no idea of the kill zone of a grenade? Even veterans? Many here are really, really, disappointing me! If you do not understand a weapon or it's use leave it the hell alone, but don't barr those who do from having it.

Most people have no idea about the proper storage, maintenance or usage of HE devices.

It isn't just the deliberate misuse of HE that would concern me - it's the folks that have to shoot off a firearm to celebrate - it's the people who believe that an M-80 is equal to one eighth of a stick of dynamite, so they know what they're doing...and they were never trained that in doubling the amount of explosive in a device, or in using two devices of equal explosive material, they square the explosive power - individuals that like to see the flash and smell the nitrates that don't have the first friggen idea about what they're handling, and what the potential danger radius is.

I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but HE goodies, frags, anti-personel mines, etc. sell for under $20.00...are you that trusting that only "The Right Folks" would be getting their hands on this stuff at that price point? Or are you thinking that adding a tax stamp at the current $200.00 would make that much of a difference?

Here's the results of what happens when somebody thinks they know what they're doing:



The Weatherman leveled that building during the assembly of their IED, and it was only a miracle that folks other than themselves weren't killed.

[rolo]

Shure. The Branch Dividans were no a government.

Where did I discuss the Branch Davidians?

You provoke nerd rage in me.

[Meplat]

Ever heard of a guy named Darwin? This is a self solving problem.

Most people have no idea about the proper storage, maintenance or usage of HE devices.

It isn't just the deliberate misuse of HE that would concern me - it's the folks that have to shoot off a firearm to celebrate - it's the people who believe that an M-80 is equal to one eighth of a stick of dynamite, so they know what they're doing...and they were never trained that in doubling the amount of explosive in a device, or in using two devices of equal explosive material, they square the explosive power - individuals that like to see the flash and smell the nitrates that don't have the first friggen idea about what they're handling, and what the potential danger radius is.

I don't know if you guys are aware of this, but HE goodies, frags, anti-personel mines, etc. sell for under $20.00...are you that trusting that only "The Right Folks" would be getting their hands on this stuff at that price point? Or are you thinking that adding a tax stamp at the current $200.00 would make that much of a difference?

Here's the results of what happens when somebody thinks they know what they're doing:



The Weatherman leveled that building during the assembly of their IED, and it was only a miracle that folks other than themselves weren't killed.

[The Director]

Meplat - You're 100% right about the letters of marque and Privateers. Forgot about 'em!

[pguevara]

I'll be blunt about my question, by stating it this way: do you believe the 2nd Amendment implies that we as individuals have the right to keep and bear strategic nuclear weapons? Never mind the physical difficulties involved -- that's something that might change with technology. This is a question about the principle.

Talking about the actual weapons/ordinance is fun and all, but I thought the question was about the principles in determining the limits.

Given my job (I practice law in federal courts), I guess I understood this question was about the legal principles of RKBA limits. I place would limits on RKBA based on the most recent and important legal precedent - Heller.

A. Why would I place limits on the RKBA? Because of Heller which held that "[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited." 128 S.Ct. at 2816.

B. Where would I place limits? Hard question since we only have one case to provide guidance for now.

First limitation from Heller:

Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Second limitation:

We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” [citation omitted]. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

But serious objections to this second limitation were left unanswered for another day:

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-daybombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Aside from incorporation of the Second Amendment (which I think everyone including the Brady people have conceded will occur), the more important question is what kind of scrutiny will the Court apply. It's at least "intermediate scrutiny." I think Heller has some nuggets implying that it should be strict scrutiny, where arms regulations "can only survive if it is narrowly tailored and is the least restrictive means to promote a compelling government interest." US v. Playboy.

In his Heller dissent, Justice Breyer argued that, assuming the RKBA is an individual right, courts should make its decision by balancing the interests of the individual and of the government. In response, the majority opinion implies that the Second Amendment stands equal to the First Amendment Freedom of Speech.

The First Amendment contains the freedom-of-speech guarantee that the people ratified, which included exceptions for obscenity, libel, and disclosure of state secrets, but not for the expression of extremely unpopular and wrong-headed views. The Second Amendment is no different. Like the First, it is the very product of an interest balancing by the people-which Justice BREYER would now conduct for them anew. And whatever else it leaves to future evaluation, it surely elevates above all other interests the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.

Since government regulations that restrict First Amendment Speech rights are generally subject to strict scrutiny and if the Second Amendment interest is equal to First Amendment Speech interests, then it follows that government restrictions on the Second Amendment must be subject to strict scrutiny. It's not that simple since there are exceptions to First Amendment Speech strict scrutiny. But the first step (after incorporation) should be for the Supreme Court to declare strict scrutiny as the basis of Second Amendment scrutiny.