What would it take?

This is a discussion on What would it take? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I think the most likely way it would happen is for someone to arrested and get their case before SCOTUS. If you recall the reason ...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 22 of 22

Thread: What would it take?

  1. #16
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,767
    I think the most likely way it would happen is for someone to arrested and get their case before SCOTUS. If you recall the reason for the ban on short barreled shotguns was (besides the defendant having died and not being there to argue to the case) that it was not demonstrated to the court that they were suitable for militia use. Selective fire weapons definitely suitable for militia use.
    So all we need is a case.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Often firearm regulation of any amount on this forum will inevitably have at least several posts that will provide a domino effect, slipper slope, etc. argument. So I'll go with the opposite argument. For select-fire / auto-fire firearms to be legal again, it will have happen a few steps at a time.

    Another possibility is an erosion of the federal authority of the regulations that govern these sales, like the 1934 National Firearms Act. I imagine this would hapen at the state level.

    For example the states that are considering made in (state name) firearms that can't be taken out of the state (out of the state's jurisdiction).

    State sponsored militias, where the state issues the firearm to a certified user. Could be various proficiency requirements, perhaps must be a CC permit holder (or maybe it would be a new class of permit), etc. Again, would not be legal to take out of the state.

    Not stating they are great solutions, just providing hypotheticals.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    ...get their case before SCOTUS...So all we need is a case.
    Maybe.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  4. #18
    VIP Member Array farronwolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,714
    Thanis,

    According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority for arming the Militia. So the weapons would have to be in accordance with that the feds determined, not the individual states.

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
    Just remember that shot placement is much more important with what you carry than how big a bang you get with each trigger pull.
    www.ddchl.com
    Texas CHL Instructor
    Texas Hunter Education Instructor
    NRA Instructor

  5. #19
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Thanis,

    According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority for arming the Militia. So the weapons would have to be in accordance with that the feds determined, not the individual states.
    Your argument is noted and noteworthy although once again this falls back on the fact that the 2nd amendment does not fall into jurisdiction of neither fed or state level to regulate. It is unalieanable and does not allow anyone whatsoever to regulate the right to keep and bear arms (arms not being clearly defined to a particular style, make, or model) for the citizen. It is for the citizen on the level of the citizen not for debate.

    So as we can see here the battle of semantics reigns supreme alas never to allow one party to be completely right in their arguments. I wish I could go back and inform the founding fathers to word it as such....

    "..... A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This right is not to be debated, regulated, denied, or taken away from the individual citizen. States nor Federal government have any regulation whatsoever over the specific arm whether it be firearm or medieval style weapon. This right shall not be subject to groups such as Brady, Congress, Obama, or any other president for that matter, the legislative branch including but not limted to Sotomayor or any other member of any political party, or civil union, or CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or any other network non news organization..... etc.... etc... I can keep going.
    "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

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by farronwolf View Post
    Thanis,

    According to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution. Congress has the authority for arming the Militia. So the weapons would have to be in accordance with that the feds determined, not the individual states.
    I think the stronger argument would be Article I, section 10, clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, ... keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace.

    However, if I'm not mistaken, a state has a right to secure the safety of its citizens. Unless someone at the federal level could show a state issued firearm would be dangerous (I think the requirement would be on the preponderance of the evidence), I don't see how it could be stopped, especialy if that firearm is owned by the state or is a firearm made in that state on lease to a resident of that state.

    There are a lot of semantics involved. A state could define its milita as peace officers. When push comes to shove I don't think the bATFe will have authority over a state issued firearm, so long as the firearm does not exit that state's jurisdiction.

    I will say one thing about many (not all) anti-gun types. Their concern usually centers around gun laws and how it applies to a city. I have a feeling if SD were to do something like I've stated, they will be made fun of in the media, but some anti-gun from NY city could care less, as long as the firearm is not allowed legally into NY.

    How I think this applies to OP, is that as long as places that issue select-fire firearms to residents (who want them), and it does not result in increased crime, then it will weaken anti-gun regulation.

    Side note, I don't think one state could offer reciprocity with another state concerning state issued firearms, as crossing state lines would fall under Fed / BATFE / FBI.
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

  7. #21
    Distinguished Member Array tangoseal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Near Hotlanta!!
    Posts
    1,335
    Montana and Georgia passed (well not sure if my state has yet) legislation protecting them from the federal govt in consideration of firearms within state borders.

    Hell if Georgia passed a law like that I would go and purchase an M4 select fire in a heartbeat but I would never ever take out of my state. I would purchase that since it would be my right wether I ever took it out of the safe. That is the whole damned point.
    "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. #22
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,347
    Quote Originally Posted by tangoseal View Post
    Montana and Georgia passed (well not sure if my state has yet) legislation protecting them from the federal govt in consideration of firearms within state borders.

    Hell if Georgia passed a law like that I would go and purchase an M4 select fire in a heartbeat but I would never ever take out of my state. I would purchase that since it would be my right wether I ever took it out of the safe. That is the whole damned point.
    The reason I think it will work in Montana and Georgia is because the state is saying, in out boarders, we have the same authority as the Feds.

    I'm thinking the feds can make the national standard, but in this situation, the state can make a lower standard, and there is not much the feds can do, because it is a subjective use of authority. Maybe hold back funding.

    This would change in a prohibition situation, if they (feds) were to ban all auto / burst fire (no exceptions).
    NRA Member
    S&W 642 (no-lock) with .38 Spl +P 135 GR Gold GDHP
    Glock G31 & G33 with .357 Sig 125 GR. SXT Winchester Ranger

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •