tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post9083191635515668052..comments2024-01-12T13:09:27.204-08:00Comments on Reasoned Politics: What Gun Laws Are Compatible With The Second Amendment?Vince Wardehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-15179537486737802512022-03-19T01:52:29.096-07:002022-03-19T01:52:29.096-07:00Hello. Great job. I did not expect this. This is a...Hello. Great job. I did not expect this. This is a excellent story. Thanks! <a href="https://outdoorammory.com/product/5-7x28-ammo/" rel="nofollow">5.7x28 ammo for sale</a>오피가이드https://www.blogger.com/profile/01306809044389606922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-18538749817714709872014-02-11T21:33:31.287-08:002014-02-11T21:33:31.287-08:00Your criteria of "common use" is weak at...Your criteria of "common use" is weak at best. The prevenient fact that machine guns, sawed-off shotguns, etc. are so heavily regulated (read that legislated against, as opposed to being well trained) and therefore expensive, is a primary factor in their less common usage.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10723761719942441028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-87117066531945826052013-12-20T00:18:08.330-08:002013-12-20T00:18:08.330-08:00Sorry to all for the long response.
Heller is not...Sorry to all for the long response.<br /><br />Heller is not perfect. I didn't write it - but SCOTUS did. We have to live with it - but as someone who has been paying attention to this for about 50 years, I can tell you that it is much, much better than we ever thought we would get. Remember the NRA never brought a 2nd Amendment challenge because the conventional wisdom was that we would loose. After all, literally generations of lawyer were taught that the 2nd Amendment only protected the militia. Did we get everything we wanted in Heller and McDonald? Of course not! Did we win a victory that we can build upon for many years, expanding gun rights? Absolutely. Is it so bad for the gun ban crowd that they still haven't figured out how little they can do now? It sure is.<br /><br />Even in the future, any attempt to expand upon Heller will have to be done very carefully in order to avoid loosing ground. This is not to say that it can't be done - just that it would have to be done carefully. It would probably be wisest to wait until Heller is very firmly established - by that I mean that many other cases have been decided using it as a precedent. Vince Wardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-57213539195935173552013-12-19T23:56:32.711-08:002013-12-19T23:56:32.711-08:00OK - this reply is very late, but just in case som...OK - this reply is very late, but just in case someone comes across this in a search, I'll go ahead and reply.<br /><br />Archer, you raise some good points - and I will try to respond. The common use test so far has been VERY good for us, but it clearly isn't perfect. At some point something is going to come along that it just does not logically apply to. What SCOTUS will decide at that point is unknown.<br /><br />Re: The Hughes Amendment - If the heavy restrictions in the NFA are legal because full auto firearms are were in common use before it was enacted, than this probably isn't an issue. Now if you could establish that there was a great deal of interest in NFA items after the NFA took effect, maybe the entire virtual ban could be challenged. However, at this point in time, arguing for the legalization of machine guns would be bad for the overall gun rights cause. There are more important battles to fight.<br /><br />Now as for new designs, at this point the high court seems focused upon "lineal decedents"- hence all manor of rifles, shotguns and pistols are legal because rifles, shotguns and pistols existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was enacted. The kind of action doesn't really matter - remember that a fully automatic weapon technically is not defined by action type - but by how many rounds of ammo are fired with each trigger pull. For instance a double barrel shotgun, modified to fire both barrels with one trigger pull would be considered "fully automatic". Thus, many new kinds of firearms within the three broad categories of rifles, pistols and shotguns would automatically be accorded 2nd Amendment protection. Now if someone invents a Ray Gun, all bets are off :)<br /><br />Vince Wardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-73402472237216741752013-11-15T09:14:16.149-08:002013-11-15T09:14:16.149-08:00That was my point above. Artificially limiting th...That was my point above. Artificially limiting the supply creates a Catch-22 with the "common use" standard. It will never be "in common use" because it will, by mandate, always be uncommon, and will become less common over time as items and parts wear out or break and can't be replaced.<br /><br />Nice analogy with the tennis shoes, btw.<br /><br />"Common use" is an incomplete standard at best. We'll take it for now, because it's better than we had before (i.e. no standard, and open season on "scary"-looking guns), but it will not and cannot be the end-all definition of what is or isn't Constitutional.<br /><br />Still looking forward to the author's response.Archerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09378629103793458871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-86086841736304955792013-11-15T06:11:34.856-08:002013-11-15T06:11:34.856-08:00First, there are LOTS of flaws in the Heller decis...First, there are LOTS of flaws in the Heller decision, and we should not look at it as gospel. For instance, it created the notion of acceptable restrictions out of thin air, instead of from the Constitution. Second, there are holes in the above arguments. For instance, in the "common use" item, machine guns are not in common use not because no one wants to use them, but because they are heavily restricted by law and even manufacture or importation of new ones which could ever find their way to the civilian market has been completely illegal for nearly 30 years. If you ban new tennis shoes for 30 years and heavily restrict old ones, then they probably won't be in common use either. But that doesn't make the ban Constitutional.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-15095566200974889742013-11-14T21:03:28.686-08:002013-11-14T21:03:28.686-08:00Here's a good read
http://johnrlott.blogspot....Here's a good read<br /><br />http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2013/11/question-if-two-cent-tax-on-newspapers.htmlAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698352566068703717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-45125649309543035232013-11-14T20:39:40.546-08:002013-11-14T20:39:40.546-08:00Eh I misquoted the NFA was actually 1934.Eh I misquoted the NFA was actually 1934.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698352566068703717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-35951904448640014802013-11-14T16:15:50.591-08:002013-11-14T16:15:50.591-08:00I'd like your thoughts on a particular "c...I'd like your thoughts on a particular "common use" question that's been eating at the back of my mind.<br /><br />When it comes to fully-automatic rifles - "machine guns" - the Hughes Amendment to the FOPA of '86 banned all importation and manufacture, <b>artificially creating</b> an extremely limited supply, therefore guaranteeing such firearms would <b>never</b> be "in common use." How does that square with the Heller decision?<br /><br />Asked another way, suppose a manufacturer designs an effective firearm with a mechanical action the like of which is unseen on the current market. Being a brand new product/design, by definition it cannot be "in common use." Does that automatically mean a ban on the new product/design is constitutional?<br /><br />I'm looking forward to your response(s).Archerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09378629103793458871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-59459625812798449192013-11-14T10:50:10.600-08:002013-11-14T10:50:10.600-08:00Sorry for thr grammar I am writing from an Android...Sorry for thr grammar I am writing from an Android that has a 2x4 screen. Should have waited to get home to a full key board.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698352566068703717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-35659006576610769392013-11-14T10:38:41.604-08:002013-11-14T10:38:41.604-08:00At first blush some points are made, but I feel th...At first blush some points are made, but I feel that you are missing the point with this dust up and that is all that you are citing are argument based on laws that should have never been made. 1934 mostly regulates automatics and suppressors, before that machine guns were could be purchased by the common man. But there was compromise and a law was created with the promised to protect us but gangsters continued to kill each other and bystanders, and judges use the precedence of the 1934 law to make the reasonable argument. The gun control compromise of 1964 created the NFA and the licensing of firearm dealers. Again a law that was suppose to protect the masses but has down only to restrict the law abiding. 1984, 1994. One more time put more restriction with no measurable benefit. It was recently was revealed just how little there was follow up on background checks. Finally and thankfully gun owners, either woke up, or new generation finally struck out on their own to stop the bleeding out of our 2nd amendment. So do you see how the gun community is not willing to put up with the likes of Metcalf when they write stuff like this? All these opinions you have cited in the defense of Metcalf have come from precedence of gun control laws of the past which came about due to the willingness of the older generation to compromise. Sorry man we are done compromising.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13698352566068703717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-54001501389768906022013-11-13T21:48:25.291-08:002013-11-13T21:48:25.291-08:00I understand the reasoning behind your argument: Y...I understand the reasoning behind your argument: You can't outlaw a class of firearms and than say that it can be banned because it is not in common use. You MAY have a point in regards to SOME prohibited firearms and accessories, but not in regards to others.<br /><br />For instance, suppressors are "in common use" where legal (Europe). Could this be used to argue that were they made legal here they would meet the common use test if made legal? Maybe. Another question would have to be: When they were legal, were they in common use?<br /><br />Consider machine guns. They clearly were not in common use before NFA 1934. Auto Ordinance could not even sell it's initial batch of Thompsons made in 1918, until the Brits started buying them in the early days of WW2. It would likely be an uphill battle to argue that they would be "in common use" jf legal today. In fact, the cost of ammo alone would argue against this.<br /><br />I'm not saying that suppressors and/or full auto guns must be banned, should be banned, or that they definitely not protected by the 2nd Amendment. I am saying that claiming 2nd Amendment protection for these firearms and accessories is going to be difficult, given the current state of 2nd Amendment law. Vince Wardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-74752104061782455582013-11-13T20:41:23.592-08:002013-11-13T20:41:23.592-08:00One of the things that was offered in exchange for...One of the things that was offered in exchange for background checks was the repeal of the ban on purchasing out of state.........<br /><br />If the gun control groups were not committed to ever increasing restrictions, in order to satisfy the extremists on there side, they could offer the gun rights side something they really want - like maybe federal preemption of most gun laws - in exchange for something they really want, like universal background checks. This would almost certainly be an offer the NRA could not refuse - since so many of it's members live in states with oppressive, and largely useless, gun laws.<br /><br />They fact that this has never happened speak volumes about the ultimate goals of many gun control groups....Vince Wardehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08422536411591526055noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-21811794294359196062013-11-13T18:58:47.954-08:002013-11-13T18:58:47.954-08:00Nicely done, thank you.
I have two competing poin...Nicely done, thank you.<br /><br />I have two competing points for your consideration, both from the Heller decision...<br /><br />First, the possible limitations. Specifically "...not be taken to cast doubt on *longstanding* prohibitions.." Emphasis mine.<br /><br />Combined with the second, the "common use" test.<br /><br />The first, in my opinion, acknowledges that there are already limitations in place, have been for a while, and this (the Heller) court decision isn't addressing them. Basically the Court said we are hearing this, not that.<br /><br />But that idea makes it's own loophole with the *longstanding* because it still allows something to be banned because the longstanding prohibition has removed something from common use. <br /><br />Machine guns aren't in common use and therefore fail the test. But machine guns aren't in common use because they were banned a long time ago.<br /><br />The very limitation of the right has established itself by virtue of being done a long time ago.<br /><br />I know I am focusing very narrowly on the subject.... maybe too much so. I just want to remove as many options from the gun control crowd as possible. I want them to argue the merits of gun control and not use circular legal traps in their quest to disarm us.Chip and Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10042276130926461420noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8517027350402344416.post-21074568466173225072013-11-13T16:29:35.295-08:002013-11-13T16:29:35.295-08:00Very well done. I wish that the people who are so...Very well done. I wish that the people who are so zealous in their concern for the 2nd Amendment would be as judicious and reasonable as yourself. Just want to make a brief point, namely, that Scalia's mention that the government can regulate the commercial sale of guns goes well beyond the regulation of dealers, for example, the 1968 GCA not only initiated the 4473 system (although not the NICS) but also prohibited individual-to-individual interstate transfer of guns; revised to allow for long gun transfers between contiguous states (thanks in part to lobbying by Dick Metcalf) but retained for all handgun transfers. I wrote a blog on this for Huffington Post last week.<br />Mike the Gun Guy Mike the Gun Guyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04336515213564777647noreply@blogger.com