US Supreme Court Rulings clarification inquiry

[titan_tim]

Yes you can. With a tank, the main gun would have to be disabled, but you can own a tank.

Ah, I DID hear that before. Which makes sense, since you can own basically any vehicle with treads. The only thing separating it from that would be the armor plating. But still shows that the 2nd amendment only applies to the actual cannon itself, and not the vehicle. A tank isn't really a tank without it. Then it's more of an APC.

Any machine guns, if enabled, would have to be registered as Class III firearms. (But, there are probably no tanks in civilian operation with "live" machine guns. Probably.) With a rocket launcher, it must be registered with the ATF as a "destructive device."

Civilians can own full-auto machine guns too. Again, would need to be registered as Class III firearms, and the owner must pay a special tax to get the permit. But there was an effective ban starting in 1989 on any new full-auto firearms being manufactured in the USA, or imported to the USA, unless they are for government/LE use (reassuring, huh). So, there is a finite supply of "machine guns" available for legal civilian ownership, meaning most cost as a much as a car and the people who buy them usually have a commercial interest in owning them.

Just curious to know what hoops need to be jumped through to get those. You can't just go to the local gun store and pick one up like a handgun. I'm guessing any permits to get those would require some stringent rules and regulations. Not quite abiding by the "shall not be infringed" wording of the 2nd.

The early US government even used to hire owners of armed ships to go hunt pirates in the name of the US govt, but still as civilians under contract. They were given "letters of marque" to legitimize their warfare.

Could that have been used under the blanket of a "well regulated militia"?

The Constitution is a document which was ratified by the States according to the specific language it contains, in 1788. There is no such thing as a "living" document. It can be amended, and there is a process for it. But its meaning does not change with the whim or wish of those who would want it to say something different, unless they're simply ignorant and can't read at the same level as those who wrote it.

The 3/5th's compromise was pretty clear, but it was still changed. There was no ignorance about how it was read, but the times called for it to be changed. I would never say there doesn't need to be a VERY strict process for making changes to it, but it's still possible and has been done multiple times in the past.

 

[AdenTheThird]

Actually, they can Charge you with Assault with a Deadly Weapon when a Vehicle is involved.

It's almost impressive how much evidence people can ignore when they desperately want to point the finger at others.
Who cares? Who cares if you can be charged? Just because a car CAN be used as a deadly weapon doesn't mean it was designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is a deadly weapon and was designed as a deadly weapon.
This is rather pathetic.

 

[Hanafuda]

Ah, I DID hear that before. Which makes sense, since you can own basically any vehicle with treads. The only thing separating it from that would be the armor plating. But still shows that the 2nd amendment only applies to the actual cannon itself, and not the vehicle. A tank isn't really a tank without it. Then it's more of an APC.

Correct. The people who own them, it's usually for some historical recreation/museum purpose.

Just curious to know what hoops need to be jumped through to get those. You can't just go to the local gun store and pick one up like a handgun. I'm guessing any permits to get those would require some stringent rules and regulations. Not quite abiding by the "shall not be infringed" wording of the 2nd.

Compliance with the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1989, and other various and sundry ATF regulations. There are "Class III" FFL dealers, who specialize in helping a buyer through the process. Some Class III items, such as suppressors (silencers) are legal to manufacture. That's the bulk of the work a Class III FFL does. But there's also short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, full-auto / select fire guns, and other Class III items. People who own any Class III items are in the extreme minority (excluding gang members who are getting "glock switches" from China or somewhere, but that shit's illegal, this is about legal ownership). The suppressors are becoming more common though, mostly because people just don't want to go deaf for no reason. Full-auto guns, like I said, are VERY expensive to own, and not many are "on sale" anywhere at any given time. There are probably internet places where they're listed. Something like a pre-1989 full-auto rifle that looks like an M16 (civilian full-auto AR-15, the last of which was made in 1989) sell around $25k I think. I'm not ever gonna be in the market for such a thing though ... no way I could afford the ammo lol.

As for not quite abiding by the 2nd Amendment, I agree. All three of those federal gun control laws are infringements, and they should be abolished. But it's pretty much a "someone let the horses out of the barn" situation now. Good luck ever getting them back in.

The 3/5th's compromise was pretty clear, but it was still changed. There was no ignorance about how it was read, but the times called for it to be changed. I would never say there doesn't need to be a VERY strict process for making changes to it, but it's still possible and has been done multiple times in the past.

That's why I said, the Constitution can be amended. And it contains a set of instructions for exactly how to do it. And it has been amended, 27 times. But that's not the same as saying it's a "living" document ... people who say that typically mean we're allowed to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we would feel good about and want, not what it actually says. Like, creating rights where the words in the Constitution make no mention of those issues. If there's something the people want the Constitution to say, but it's not in there now, then it should be amended. It's really simple.

 

[Smoker1]

It's almost impressive how much evidence people can ignore when they desperately want to point the finger at others.
Who cares? Who cares if you can be charged? Just because a car CAN be used as a deadly weapon doesn't mean it was designed to be a deadly weapon. A gun is a deadly weapon and was designed as a deadly weapon.
This is rather pathetic.

https://www.greghillassociates.com/...n be considered,classified as a deadly weapon.

But same thing with Knives. Guess we should Ban those? Look at what is going on in the UK. Stabbings like crazy, and they are going after "Zombie Knives", Swords, even read about going after large Kitchen Knives.

Post automatically merged: Feb 26, 2024

Way I see it: People have the Right to be able to best Protect and Defend themselves, their Family, their Home, Livelihood, and if needed, others, and if it comes to it, this Country from Threats both Foreign and Domestic. No one has the Right, or Authority to tell People to let bad People do what they want, let them have their way, or just let things happen to themselves, Family, you name it.

 

[titan_tim]

There are probably internet places where they're listed. Something like a pre-1989 full-auto rifle that looks like an M16 (civilian full-auto AR-15, the last of which was made in 1989) sell around $25k I think. I'm not ever gonna be in the market for such a thing though ... no way I could afford the ammo lol.

Sounds a lot like the Chris Rock skit there. Putting bullets on layaway.

As for not quite abiding by the 2nd Amendment, I agree. All three of those federal gun control laws are infringements, and they should be abolished. But it's pretty much a "someone let the horses out of the barn" situation now. Good luck ever getting them back in.

I would never expect the guns just to disappear. Australia has a ban, but we all know that there are still lots in basements around the country. But the people are smart enough not to flaunt them around like a toy.

Sorry if I like to go to hypotheticals, but they're fun and I find they get to the root issues easily. If S&W came out with a new laser gun where you can sweep a room, and it cuts everything in two. Think of a lightsaber, but with longer range. Should normal citizens be able to buy one? Or would that be an infringement of the 2nd?

That's why I said, the Constitution can be amended. And it contains a set of instructions for exactly how to do it. And it has been amended, 27 times. But that's not the same as saying it's a "living" document ... people who say that typically mean we're allowed to interpret the Constitution to mean whatever we would feel good about and want, not what it actually says. Like, creating rights where the words in the Constitution make no mention of those issues. If there's something the people want the Constitution to say, but it's not in there now, then it should be amended. It's really simple.

I think we're on the same page, just picking on the semantics. That being said, we probably won't agree on the simple wording of what's considered a "well regulated militia".

 

[Hanafuda]

If S&W came out with a new laser gun where you can sweep a room, and it cuts everything in two. Think of a lightsaber, but with longer range. Should normal citizens be able to buy one? Or would that be an infringement of the 2nd?

That kinda goes along with the "Can you own a nuke?!??" question, but with an interesting twist. There is a SCOTUS decision from 1939 called US v. Miller that says (though this was not the central issue in the case) that the 2nd amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" that a soldier or militia member could employ in "the common defense." The fact that this case is out there makes me question the knowledge of people who say civilians should not be able to own "weapons of war," cuz that's pretty much what US v Miller says the 2nd Amendment does cover. In other words, if it is regularly issued to an infantryman in the military, the 2nd Amendment definitely covers that. But your hypothetical laser weapon ... I guess it would depend on whether the Army issues it to combat troops. They don't issue nukes to combat troops, so I think that answers that question too. Also, remember that the 2nd Amendment uses the word "bear," which implies something that can be handled and implemented by an individual or at most a small squad.

 

[titan_tim]

That kinda goes along with the "Can you own a nuke?!??" question, but with an interesting twist. There is a SCOTUS decision from 1939 called US v. Miller that says (though this was not the central issue in the case) that the 2nd amendment covers the "ordinary military equipment" that a soldier or militia member could employ in "the common defense." The fact that this case is out there makes me question the knowledge of people who say civilians should not be able to own "weapons of war," cuz that's pretty much what US v Miller says the 2nd Amendment does cover. In other words, if it is regularly issued to an infantryman in the military, the 2nd Amendment definitely covers that. But your hypothetical laser weapon ... I guess it would depend on whether the Army issues it to combat troops. They don't issue nukes to combat troops, so I think that answers that question too. Also, remember that the 2nd Amendment uses the word "bear," which implies something that can be handled and implemented by an individual or at most a small squad.

Interesting case. I skimmed over it a bit to see what it's about. Forgive me if I missed anything. Seems they were transporting sawed off shotguns, which they deemed to be illegal. It doesn't look like it was saying that civilians could have military weapons, but that they were allowed to have weapons found in militias. I think that's a pretty big distinction to make.

I wouldn't use a nuke as a hypothetical, because it's not really realistic. I think that in a few decades, we may have to deal with that type of weapon being around. If I were a general, I'd DEFINITELY want that type of weapon in the hands of the soldiers. Just sweep a battlefield and the enemy line get's cut down.

I'm just trying to find the cutoff point where we both can say "Ok, that's kind of crazy to let regular people have". A guy could go into a jewelry store, sweep the room with no effort, then steal. The police come, and the guy could sweep the cars, before they even get out, and easily get away.