Gun Bans

[Caninope]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Because it is understood by people with operational synapses that "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "guns".
Is it clear now, or do you need it in crayons?

I got something better than crayons.

SCOTUS has specifically ruled that "arms" refers to firearms.

[Terruana]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Well, McDonald v. Chicago, for one.

Okay, went and looked it up. From what I'm seeing, it looks like that particular case was about blanket ban on handguns and some stuff about registering paperwork on guns. Doesn't seem to say anything that contradicts what I said :/ But please explain?

[Caninope]

Well, McDonald v. Chicago, for one.

Okay, went and looked it up. From what I'm seeing, it looks like that particular case was about blanket ban on handguns and some stuff about registering paperwork on guns. Doesn't seem to say anything that contradicts what I said :/ But please explain?

McDonald v Chicago applies the logic of DC v Heller to sub-federal levels of the government.

What DC v Heller held was that weapons in common use for legal purposes (as first discussed in US v Miller, 1934) couldn't be banned. In this case, it referred to blanket bans on handguns. I am more than convinced that would also apply to assault weapons however.

[Nua Corda]

Well, McDonald v. Chicago, for one.

Okay, went and looked it up. From what I'm seeing, it looks like that particular case was about blanket ban on handguns and some stuff about registering paperwork on guns. Doesn't seem to say anything that contradicts what I said :/ But please explain?

Made preventing access to handguns unconstitutional. You wanted to know how banning assault weapons could be considered unconstitutional. Same deal.

Also, this is an assault weapon;



(It's also for sale in my storefront)

This is not;



(and is not)

[United Prefectures of Appia]

Also, this is an assault weapon;

(Image)

(It's also for sale in my storefront)

I know it says "Demo" on that pic, but does it also say that as well in the store front too? Either way, what sort of reason would an individual want with this kind of launcher anyways?

[Nua Corda]

Also, this is an assault weapon;

(Image)

(It's also for sale in my storefront)

I know it says "Demo" on that pic, but does it also say that as well in the store front too? Either way, what sort of reason would an individual want with this kind of launcher anyways?

There are several different types of projectile for the Silver Arrow. But that's beside the point.

An individual might want it, but could never realistically own it. A government would want it because it's the best damn ATGM on NS. The point being that "assault weapons" are very different from "assault rifles".

[Terruana]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Because it is understood by people with operational synapses that "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "guns".
Is it clear now, or do you need it in crayons?

Very snappy. I guess those poor folks at the Oxford English dictionary need to get some new synapses then, because they define "arms" simply as "weapons".

Because some weapons are in "common use for lawful purposes" (see US v Miller, DC v Heller), like assault weapons. Other aren't, like ICBM's.

EDIT: Additionally, DC v Heller defined "arms".

Are assault rifles in common use for lawful purposes? (I genuinely have no idea). Also, I'm reading about DC vs Heller now and I can't see anything about defining arms (but I have no legal background knowledge so I may just be missing it entirely). Are we talking about this part:
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."?

If so, I think I can sort of see what you're saying. If I'm correct, you're saying that any weapon that is commonly used for legal purposes is covered by the amendment? So that would mean the argument isn't so much about whether it's unconstitutional to restrict ownership of assault rifles, it's about whether assault rifles are in common use for legal purposes? Yes, no, maybe?

Reading about US vs Miller is confusing me a little. Apparently it's often cited as both pro and anti gun regulation... But what I'm getting from it is that only weapons that are reasonably required for self defence or joining a militia are covered? So again, coming back to what I said before, the argument is whether assault rifles are reasonably required?

This seems to be the recurring theme anyway. I always got the impression that the argument put forward by the pro-gun side was that it would be unconstitutional to ban assault weapons regardless of any other considerations.

I got something better than crayons.

SCOTUS has specifically ruled that "arms" refers to firearms.

Do you have a link/name for the ruling/quote? I'd be very interested to see a definitive statement on this. In the (admittedly few) cases I've read so far, I've yet to see any definitive statement saying arms refers solely to firearms.

[Terruana]

Okay, went and looked it up. From what I'm seeing, it looks like that particular case was about blanket ban on handguns and some stuff about registering paperwork on guns. Doesn't seem to say anything that contradicts what I said :/ But please explain?

Made preventing access to handguns unconstitutional. You wanted to know how banning assault weapons could be considered unconstitutional. Same deal.

<snip>

Okay... But what I was trying to ask was, since it's established that there is a line somewhere (it's not unlimited access to weapons and it's no zero access either), how can it be unconstitutional to draw the line somewhere in the middle, unless the line has already been definitively and permanently defined?

[Dyakovo]

Because it is understood by people with operational synapses that "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "guns".
Is it clear now, or do you need it in crayons?

Very snappy. I guess those poor folks at the Oxford English dictionary need to get some new synapses then, because they define "arms" simply as "weapons".

I guess you missed the part where we're talking about a specific usage of the word...
Hold on while I go get the crayons.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

[Terruana]

Also, another thing I'm wondering; It seems to me that the whole basis of the second amendment is about the right of people to be armed should they ever need to fight their own government (essentially, anyway). But in a modern world with long range missiles, air support etc, would it really make any difference whether the militia had handguns and rifles or assault rifles and machine guns?
Just seems like a bit of an outdated concept to me :/ If the government did go all tyrannical and repressive, I'd have thought a local militia would be of little to no use.

[Terruana]

Very snappy. I guess those poor folks at the Oxford English dictionary need to get some new synapses then, because they define "arms" simply as "weapons".

I guess you missed the part where we're talking about a specific usage of the word...
Hold on while I go get the crayons.

I guess I did. Care to show me the quote where it was defined as "Solely firearms"?

[Farnhamia]

I guess you missed the part where we're talking about a specific usage of the word...
Hold on while I go get the crayons.

I guess I did. Care to show me the quote where it was defined as "Solely firearms"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... r#Decision

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Swords and pikes and shit don't seem to enter into it.

[Terruana]

Very snappy. I guess those poor folks at the Oxford English dictionary need to get some new synapses then, because they define "arms" simply as "weapons".

I guess you missed the part where we're talking about a specific usage of the word...
Hold on while I go get the crayons.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court of the United States first ruled in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment. In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.

Thanks for the crayons. But I'm still not seeing it. Just because it includes firearms, doesn't mean it's limited to them.
And since I've found what I think is the best way to phrase my question, I'll ask again:
If it's established that there is a) not a right to unlimited access to weapons (arms) and b) a right to at least some access to weapons (those in common use for legal purposes), then how can it be unconstitutional to draw a line somewhere in the middle, unless that line has already been definitively and permanently defined? (which, to my limited knowledge, it hasn't been?)

I guess I did. Care to show me the quote where it was defined as "Solely firearms"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... r#Decision

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

Same as above really :/ The way I'm reading that is that the ruling simply states that the second amendment includes firearms; not that it is limited to them. Am I missing something?

[Farnhamia]

I guess you missed the part where we're talking about a specific usage of the word...
Hold on while I go get the crayons.

Thanks for the crayons. But I'm still not seeing it. Just because it includes firearms, doesn't mean it's limited to them.
And since I've found what I think is the best way to phrase my question, I'll ask again:
If it's established that there is a) not a right to unlimited access to weapons (arms) and b) a right to at least some access to weapons (those in common use for legal purposes), then how can it be unconstitutional to draw a line somewhere in the middle, unless that line has already been definitively and permanently defined? (which, to my limited knowledge, it hasn't been?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o ... r#Decision

Same as above really :/ The way I'm reading that is that the ruling simply states that the second amendment includes firearms; not that it is limited to them. Am I missing something?

Common sense? I'm sorry, but you're just doing the same old Definition Two-Step. You don't want to do anything about the important issues, like how easy access to guns contributes to crime and suicide, I guess because that would be admitting that someone else is the boss of you or something, so you just dance around arguing about what a weapon is and what's a firearm and what's an assault weapon. How many people have to die before you grow up?

[Dyakovo]

I guess you missed the part where we're talking about a specific usage of the word...
Hold on while I go get the crayons.

Thanks for the crayons. But I'm still not seeing it. Just because it includes firearms, doesn't mean it's limited to them.

Not includes, is. The Second Amendment's "arms" has always referred to "firearms". If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the subject you're attempting to discuss, why should we believe you'll suddenly start paying attention now?

[Novraslavia]

Are you really arguing about whether or not the word "arms" means firearms?

[Dyakovo]

Are you really arguing about whether or not the word "arms" means firearms?

Surprisingly enough, yes.

[Gibberish America]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

I hate having Feinstein as my senator for this very reason.

[Farnhamia]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

I hate having Feinstein as my senator for this very reason.

So vote her out.

[Nua Corda]

The Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone to full ban on all semi-automatic weapons. Assault weapons are defined by purely cosmetic features, not their technical capacities.

I hate having Feinstein as my senator for this very reason.

Her heart's in the right place, but she just doesn't understand what she's trying to control. And that never ends well.

[Caninope]

Are assault rifles in common use for lawful purposes? (I genuinely have no idea).

Assault weapons =/= assault rifles. But, to answer your question, yes.

If so, I think I can sort of see what you're saying. If I'm correct, you're saying that any weapon that is commonly used for legal purposes is covered by the amendment? So that would mean the argument isn't so much about whether it's unconstitutional to restrict ownership of assault rifles, it's about whether assault rifles are in common use for legal purposes? Yes, no, maybe?

Yes.

Reading about US vs Miller is confusing me a little. Apparently it's often cited as both pro and anti gun regulation... But what I'm getting from it is that only weapons that are reasonably required for self defence or joining a militia are covered? So again, coming back to what I said before, the argument is whether assault rifles are reasonably required?

Once again, we're discussing assault weapons, not rifles. However, DC v Heller has expanded that; DC v Heller essentially found that the part about the militia was just a very nice preamble and that the right to bear arms was an individual right that was essentially protected for everything except unusually dangerous weapons (DC v Heller did NOT overrule US v Miller, mind you). US v Miller is confusing because it upheld a gun control law, but left a strong argument for gun rights advocates.

Do you have a link/name for the ruling/quote? I'd be very interested to see a definitive statement on this. In the (admittedly few) cases I've read so far, I've yet to see any definitive statement saying arms refers solely to firearms.

It doesn't specifically say arms solely refers to firearms. It does, however, say that arms (in the 2nd Amendment sense) refer to weapons that were not designed an deployed in a military capacity (thus allowing assault weapons [which are civilian weapons, mind you] more constitutional protection than a nuclear missile).

Here's the quote:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we inter­
pret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no
different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of
Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons
of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the
English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson).
Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary
defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his
defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast
at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dic­
tionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary
of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinaf­
ter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that
were not specifically designed for military use and were
not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cun­
ningham’s legal dictionary gave as an example of usage:
“Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on
Sundays, &c. and not bear other arms.” See also, e.g., An
Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, §6,
p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104
(J. Cushing ed. 1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke,
42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts
construing “arms”). Although one founding-era thesaurus
limited “arms” (as opposed to “weapons”) to “instruments
of offence generally made use of in war,” even that source
stated that all firearms constituted “arms.” 1 J. Trusler,
The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in
the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

emphasis added

[Caninope]

Thanks for the crayons. But I'm still not seeing it. Just because it includes firearms, doesn't mean it's limited to them.

Not includes, is. The Second Amendment's "arms" has always referred to "firearms". If you can't be bothered to educate yourself on the subject you're attempting to discuss, why should we believe you'll suddenly start paying attention now?

Actually, the court held that it is best used to describe weapons that were not intended for a military usage.

Of course, given a little bit of logic and brainpower, it's easy to see it's referring to firearms.

[AiliailiA]

Caninope is right.

I'll take a gander at why you agree with me. I get the feeling that you, like me, think that there's absolutely nothing wrong with people like my dad simply because he has two hunting rifles and three hunting shotguns. You think there's absolutely nothing wrong with people like my granddad with multiple shotguns, rifles, and handguns (and had more before they were stolen about a decade ago)

When a criminal stole his guns (by burglary I presume?) they got more than one.

That's a problem right there.

Both are law abiding citizens, and you (like me) do not think there is anything wrong with them simply because they own so many guns.

I could give a list of reasons why a person would dislike my dad (as I suppose every son could), but nowhere on that list is the fact that he owns multiple firearms.

It's not personal. Stop trying to make it personal.

[AiliailiA]

Someone please clarify something for me? The often quoted second amendment states that citizens of the United States have the right to bear arms.
Nowhere in there, that I'm aware of, does it specify which arms are covered by this right. For example, so far as I'm aware, no private citizens have a right to own nuclear missiles or aircraft carriers. These are, however, both in the category of "arms".
So then, with such a well established and widely accepted precedent of limiting which arms can be legally borne, how can it then be argued that it's unconstitutional to further restrict access to guns (for example, assault weapons)?

Because it is understood by people with operational synapses that "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "guns".
Is it clear now, or do you need it in crayons?

Seemed like a polite question to me. Why be so rude?

[Farnhamia]

Because it is understood by people with operational synapses that "arms" refers to "firearms" aka "guns".
Is it clear now, or do you need it in crayons?

Seemed like a polite question to me. Why be so rude?

Because the Definition Two-Step gets old very quickly.