No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

This is a discussion on No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Yes, the issue could be forced, but in general, judges don't like to rock the boat unless they have sufficient and clear jurisprudence behind them. ...

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 123

Thread: No select fire is a violation of our rights... why cant we get them back?

  1. #46
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Yes, the issue could be forced, but in general, judges don't like to rock the boat unless they have sufficient and clear jurisprudence behind them.

    I think this is the beautiful part about Heller and now McDonald. Both were very narrow cases, Heller especially, that didn't try to eat the whole elephant at once. But they are laying a very logical and clear progression of logic that will eventually be strong enough to challenge the NFA and GCA as well as any future AWB or other restrictions.

    I firmly believe that that is the legal strategy Gura is pursuing - one small but resolute step at a time, resisting the temptation to move too fast too soon and trip. Laying the foundation like this opens up the door for other cases, including questions about machine guns, destructive devices, etc, that will be guided by the ones being argued now.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    VIP Member Array zacii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    arizona
    Posts
    3,749
    Maybe, in the wake of the Heller & MacDonald cases, there will be an opportunity to question some of these other hoplophobic laws.
    Trust in God and keep your powder dry

    "A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government." -source

  4. #48
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    When I have pointed out that these laws are unconstitutional in my opinion to others their true colors come out. Most of them change instantly from its legal to ban them to the "You want just anyone owning a machine gun?" This statement is an admittance on their part that they don't really care what the Constitution says. Even members of congress use this argument rather than pointing out any legal, Constitutional reason.

    Michael

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array peckman28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    2,074
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    When I have pointed out that these laws are unconstitutional in my opinion to others their true colors come out. Most of them change instantly from its legal to ban them to the "You want just anyone owning a machine gun?" This statement is an admittance on their part that they don't really care what the Constitution says. Even members of congress use this argument rather than pointing out any legal, Constitutional reason.

    Michael
    Exactly. And that line of reasoning is precisely how our freedoms are eroded, including the current topic. Until we can get people to be concerned about the rule of law instead of what seems expedient at the moment, this problem will persist and the nanny state will grow.

  6. #50
    Senior Member Array AlexHassin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    the North East
    Posts
    552
    Maybe I missed something but why do these expensive loud toys matter so much to some individuals? I’m just not really seeing why it maters so much.

  7. #51
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,336
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexHassin View Post
    Maybe I missed something but why do these expensive loud toys matter so much to some individuals? I’m just not really seeing why it maters so much.

    Matters to me because every little thing that takes away from our freedom as individuals for the betterment of your envisioned society is not how God or founders intended or designed.

    Its like Tort reform that the re"pube"icans (as levin calls them) keep spouting off.

    I dont agree with Tort reform because I should have every RIGHT to sue for any reason I want whether you like it or not. Its my individual liberty to do so.

    Same with guns and weapons. If you agree that some guns should be banned but not others you may very well want to agree that all guns should be banned there by making you a non-American.

    I truly believe to the depth of my heart that a Man born of this country should no longer make him an American by birthright rather you must prove that you understand and fully support 100% of the founding documents that provide GOD given rights such as the right to defend one's castle and country the same with whatever gun they so choose.

    I've heard the stupid argument time and time again... "The fathers didnt envision fully auto weapons"... what a bunch of crap to argue some garbage like that.

    What happens when we have plasma guns or laser rifles? Oh let me guess ... "The founding fathers never envisioned laser weapons so the public is not allowed access to them".

    sigh I need a beer!
    "I believe that the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms must not be infringed if liberty in America is to survive." - Ronald Reagan

  8. #52
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    The BATFE needs to generate revenue by arresting people and taxing them to own things so they can continue to operate in their fine upstanding manner.

  9. #53
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,530

    re: Tangoseal

    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Matters to me because every little thing that takes away from our freedom as individuals for the betterment of your envisioned society is not how God or founders intended or designed.

    Its like Tort reform that the re"pube"icans (as levin calls them) keep spouting off.

    I dont agree with Tort reform because I should have every RIGHT to sue for any reason I want whether you like it or not. Its my individual liberty to do so.

    Same with guns and weapons. If you agree that some guns should be banned but not others you may very well want to agree that all guns should be banned there by making you a non-American.

    I truly believe to the depth of my heart that a Man born of this country should no longer make him an American by birthright rather you must prove that you understand and fully support 100% of the founding documents that provide GOD given rights such as the right to defend one's castle and country the same with whatever gun they so choose.

    I've heard the stupid argument time and time again... "The fathers didnt envision fully auto weapons"... what a bunch of crap to argue some garbage like that.

    What happens when we have plasma guns or laser rifles? Oh let me guess ... "The founding fathers never envisioned laser weapons so the public is not allowed access to them".

    sigh I need a beer!
    In an ideal world full of good people you would be absolutely right on both the tort reform issue and the FA issue. Sadly, we don't live in that ideal world. We are from from it.

    Practicality intrudes. So, our legislatures and our judges try to create balance, "reasonable" laws, and reasonable case law.

    When they miss the mark, the other branches step in and move things back to the center.

    As we have just seen in the Gulf of Mexico disaster, freedom doesn't always mean letting others *corporations for example* do whatever they want. Sometimes freedom means looking out for the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

    Right now I could certainly see where playing with FA at a range could be great fun. I can not see allowing FA widespread ownership of FA weapons, or 16 inch shot guns, as good public policy.

    I know at least 4 cops or ex cops, and I don't want what happened in the CA bank robbery to become anything but the extremely rare event it was, for their sake and for mine.

    I really fear that if we loosen up on FA, we will pay a huge price long term.

    Also, last time I was in Mexico City (thankfully 25 years ago) I couldn't help but notice the arms used by the ordinary cop on the street corner--- FA carbines. You know, it gave the street an oppressive feeling. I don't want our average officer to have to patrol like that. Don't we have enough complaints as it is about the "militarization" of our police? Do we really want to do things that will further that sad trend?

  10. #54
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    While your argument is compelling, the North Hollywood shootout weapons were semi's illegally converted to fully automatic so should semi automatic rifles be banned to? also by your reasoning it is completely valid to say that handguns should be banned because of what Cho did at VA tech.

  11. #55
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,530

    re: azchevy

    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    While your argument is compelling, the North Hollywood shootout weapons were semi's illegally converted to fully automatic so should semi automatic rifles be banned to? also by your reasoning it is completely valid to say that handguns should be banned because of what Cho did at VA tech.
    So, which part of my argument do you find compelling?

    I'm not sure if you share my opinion or if you just are not persuaded because you have counters to my reasoning?

    Also, slippery slope arguments of the sort you are concerned with have their limitations. They are great warnings about what might occur, but not necessarily good predictors of what will occur.

    Like almost everything else in life, we get to chose the level of risk we want to accept. For me, wide spread availability of either FA (especially in pistol form) or short shot-guns is an invitation to a kind of trouble our society does not want. We do have some unfortunate national history on these issues which led to the curtailment and the upholding of the curtailment by The Supremes. It is not like this issue exists in an historical vacuum.

  12. #56
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    The part about not allowing access to any idiot. I understand that but as long as semis are available any idiot can convert them using the internet as a guide. So should we also ban semi's?

    Short shotguns? Hacksaws are widely available.

    Bad people already have fully auto weapons so do you feel at risk?

    Again going by your argument, handguns have and unfortunate national history being used at Va Tech, shotguns at Columbine, Rifles in texas.... should we ban all of those too? The risk may be too great?

    I mean the auto weapons in N. Hollywood only INJURED 17, the handguns and shotguns took lives.


    Why punish everyone for the actions of a few? That is closed minded thinking and why we have to fight for our Constitutional rights every day as politicians attempt to remove them.

  13. #57
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Like almost everything else in life, we get to chose the level of risk we want to accept. For me, wide spread availability of either FA (especially in pistol form) or short shot-guns is an invitation to a kind of trouble our society does not want. We do have some unfortunate national history on these issues which led to the curtailment and the upholding of the curtailment by The Supremes. It is not like this issue exists in an historical vacuum.
    Just curious: what NFA cases are you referring to that have been brought before the supreme court? As I said before, I'm only aware of Miller and that didn't deal with machine guns at all. Machine guns and their legal stigma may not exist in a historical vacuum, but they sure do live in a judicial vacuum.

    As for accepting risk, you're free to accept as much risk as you wish. My problem is when you start dictating how much risk I have to accept. Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't have a full-auto defensive pistol or rifle just because you're worried that someone else will steal it and do naughty things?

    SBR's and SBS's are particularly silly things to demonize. Both are most useful in defensive applications, like the famous "coach guns", and the arbitrary length of 16" (or 18" for shotguns) only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend their homes.

    You can't even make the "restrict circulation" argument with SBR's/SBS's. Any unscrupulous individal that can get his hands on a 24" 12ga and a hacksaw will just pull a Kyle Reese and saw off the stock and the barrel to whatever length they want.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  14. #58
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,530

    re: Bob The Great

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob The Great View Post
    Just curious: what NFA cases are you referring to that have been brought before the supreme court? As I said before, I'm only aware of Miller and that didn't deal with machine guns at all. Machine guns and their legal stigma may not exist in a historical vacuum, but they sure do live in a judicial vacuum.
    Actually it was Miller I had in mind and you are correct about it not dealing with FA. Still, (Haven't the time to look) I feel confident there have been many convictions on the FA stuff that simply never got reviewed by The Supremes. I'm going to just guess here because I don't know how to research it, that such cases just get to an appeals court, get blown off, and The Supremes never have shown any interest in reviewing these felony convictions.

    As for accepting risk, you're free to accept as much risk as you wish. My problem is when you start dictating how much risk I have to accept.
    Of course I can not dictate to you what level of risk you must accept or reject. However our legislatures do this all the time. That is their function, or rather part of their function. Think "seat belts." Crumple zones on your car. Those things exist because legislatures
    determined acceptable and unacceptable risk for individuals living within our greater society.

    Who are you to tell me that I shouldn't have a full-auto defensive pistol or rifle just because you're worried that someone else will steal it and do naughty things?
    Again, I'm nobody and I can't tell you a thing. But our legislatures have that authority provided the courts don't find that they exercised it in an unconstitutional manner. So far, the courts have hardly ever intervened against legislatures on gun law.

    SBR's and SBS's are particularly silly things to demonize. Both are most useful in defensive applications, like the famous "coach guns", and the arbitrary length of 16" (or 18" for shotguns) only makes it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to defend their homes.

    You can't even make the "restrict circulation" argument with SBR's/SBS's. Any unscrupulous individal that can get his hands on a 24" 12ga and a hacksaw will just pull a Kyle Reese and saw off the stock and the barrel to whatever length they want.
    That is like saying we shouldn't have any laws because anybody who wants to can break them.

  15. #59
    Distinguished Member Array Bob The Great's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Slidell, LA
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Actually it was Miller I had in mind and you are correct about it not dealing with FA. Still, (Haven't the time to look) I feel confident there have been many convictions on the FA stuff that simply never got reviewed by The Supremes. I'm going to just guess here because I don't know how to research it, that such cases just get to an appeals court, get blown off, and The Supremes never have shown any interest in reviewing these felony convictions.
    There may be a couple of cases out there, but none that I've heard of where there was any kind of constitutional review. The time and money necessary to take a case all the way to SCOTUS can keep anything but a real strong case or a very determined lawyer from making it all the way.

    As for Miller, they very carefully stepped around the constitutionality of the NFA as a whole. All they said was that Miller had not presented any evidence showing that his shotgun was suitable for militia use, therefore they could not apply the 2A to it. Note that they did not say that the NFA was compatible with arms protected under the 2A. That question was just not examined.

    Had Miller's lawyer showed up or submitted any evidence, it would have been easy to show that short-barreled shotguns had clear militia uses, and the question of the NFA regulating 2A protected arms would have had to be answered. But they didn't show, and the court had only the evidence and arguments before it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Of course I can not dictate to you what level of risk you must accept or reject. However our legislatures do this all the time. That is their function, or rather part of their function. Think "seat belts." Crumple zones on your car. Those things exist because legislatures
    determined acceptable and unacceptable risk for individuals living within our greater society.

    Again, I'm nobody and I can't tell you a thing. But our legislatures have that authority provided the courts don't find that they exercised it in an unconstitutional manner. So far, the courts have hardly ever intervened against legislatures on gun law.
    I was being rhetorical, and including the US government in the term "you." Seat belt and crumple zone laws are also kinda nanny-state-ish IMO, but at least they don't restrict a fundamental right.

    That's very different from saying that the mere possession of a certain type of gun is illegal, except it's ok if it was made before this date and if I pay them some money - then it's fine.

    I also don't put much stock in a court's refusal to overturn or hear cases on certain gun laws. I've read more than a few very strained and convoluted rulings on the subject, especially from the lower courts. Just because a judge goes through enough mental manipulations to say black is white and up is down doesn't make it so.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    That is like saying we shouldn't have any laws because anybody who wants to can break them.
    Hardly. It points out the ineffectiveness of malum prohibitum laws - illegal acts which are considered wrong not because of any inherant harm or evil, but wrong simply because they are prohibited. Laws forbidding damage to the property of others are quite useful and offer a mechanism for true justice.
    "A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the continuance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
    Is this hard to understand? Then why does it get unintelligible to some people when 5 little words are changed?

  16. #60
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,823
    Another reason that we probably wont ever see unrestricted ownership of FA or SBS's or SBR's is because it is a cash cow for the government.

    There are lots of suppressors out there, lots of short barreled shotguns, lots of short barreled rifles. At 200 bucks a pop, I doubt that the Feds would want to lose yet another source of revenue.

    Think "seat belts." Crumple zones on your car. Those things exist because legislatures
    determined acceptable and unacceptable risk for individuals living within our greater society.
    I wear seat belts and have ever since I attended some rather nasty wrecks as a Fireman many moons ago. I trained my kids to wear them and they are training their kids to wear them. Having attended many wrecks as both a Cop and a Fireman, I think its the smart thing to do and I encourage everyone to do the same. With that being said, the legislators could care less. The laws only exist because the Insurance Companies lobbied for years because it was costing them big bucks. It was not for the acceptable or the unacceptable risks our citizens were taking, it was the same thing that always enacts change...it cost somebody some money.

    Had the Insurance Companies not wined and dined and bribed our Congressmen and Senators and spent years doing it, we would still not have any seatbelt laws in place. They too have become a cash cow for many depts, and many places had laws in effect, (Arkansas was on of them) that stated that not wearing a seatbelt could not be a primary cause for a stop or a primary infraction. A couple of years ago that went away. Now, technically, if I am in my cruiser and I see you driving without a seat belt I can stop you and give you a ticket.

    When the law was being debated, it was added to it just to get it to pass. It rocked on a few years and then that restriction was removed.

    See how it works? People getting shot through windshields when coming to a hard stop had nothing to do with it. Like most other things, it was all about money...the same reason that we wont soon see the NFA repealed.
    The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those that speak it...- George Orwell

    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: September 8th, 2010, 02:09 AM
  2. Dont argue but ... this is why we need 2a fully opened and select fire.
    By tangoseal in forum Defensive Rifles & Shotgun Discussion
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: September 6th, 2010, 01:26 PM
  3. Gun Control: The Ultimate Human Rights Violation
    By DaveH in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 3rd, 2010, 07:23 PM
  4. Rules Against City of New York for Violation of Constitutional Rights
    By mrreynolds in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 16th, 2009, 09:28 PM
  5. Lou Dobbs: Rights under fire
    By BlackPR in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2009, 04:57 AM

Search tags for this page

bearable arms

,

register select fire weapons

Click on a term to search for related topics.