Another 2nd Amendment Case Likely To Head To SCOTUS

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure a ban on homemade guns is a 2nd amendment issue. While I don't think the government should have the right to limit civilian access to firearms for personal protection, I think the government SHOULD step in when there are significant safety issues involved. This goes for anything, but particularly for inherently dangerous devices like firearms. The risks of a "homemade" gun that doesn't meet safety standards injuring the user or some innocent third party seems like a problem too large to ignore.

And I think that safety issues fall directly in the realm of interstate commerce, and I assume that idea has been upheld multiple times. I'm not sure the government should ban homemade machine guns because they are homemade, they should ban them because it doesn't seem too likely that they are safe.

A gun isn't a complicated tool. A look at any 3rd world country in a civil war will make apparent how far the Wile E Coyote School of Gunsmithing will go.

There are folks who build the Mujahideen AR15. Take a block of aluminum, some c clamps, and a drill and go to town, from the ground up.

On something like an AR15 making it into a machinegun is nothing dangerous. A person could make the parts themselves (no, you can't just file down the firing pin :roll and would be economically feasible. As it is right now, machineguns are a rich mans game. Unless you have tens of thousands to spend on one, forget it.

While I don't think they should be any more regulated than any other gun (FWIW a registered machinegun has only been used once in a crime since 1934, and it was by a cop), the only thing I can see happening would be repealing the post 86 ban.

Lift the 86 ban, make the tax say $2,500. Gun prices would fall back into a sane range. Figure $750 for an AR15, with the tax stamp $3,250.

I think something like that is the only chance post 86s will ever be available to civilians.

And what is irksome is you can get the $200 destructive device stamp for a grenade, but you can't get one for a post 86 machinegun. Asinine.

It's the same thing they did to pot. Made it legal but taxed it. Then didn't like how that was going so they just stopped issuing tax stamps and poof, illegal.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure a ban on homemade guns is a 2nd amendment issue. While I don't think the government should have the right to limit civilian access to firearms for personal protection, I think the government SHOULD step in when there are significant safety issues involved. This goes for anything, but particularly for inherently dangerous devices like firearms. The risks of a "homemade" gun that doesn't meet safety standards injuring the user or some innocent third party seems like a problem too large to ignore.

And I think that safety issues fall directly in the realm of interstate commerce, and I assume that idea has been upheld multiple times. I'm not sure the government should ban homemade machine guns because they are homemade, they should ban them because it doesn't seem too likely that they are safe.

A gun isn't a complicated tool. A look at any 3rd world country in a civil war will make apparent how far the Wile E Coyote School of Gunsmithing will go.

There are folks who build the Mujahideen AR15. Take a block of aluminum, some c clamps, and a drill and go to town, from the ground up.

On something like an AR15 making it into a machinegun is nothing dangerous. A person could make the parts themselves (no, you can't just file down the firing pin :roll and would be economically feasible. As it is right now, machineguns are a rich mans game. Unless you have tens of thousands to spend on one, forget it.
...

I'm not arguing that it's impossible, or even difficult, to do. I'm saying that it is certainly within the realm of possibility that some yahoo will NOT do it safely and will kill or injure himself or other people. A gun is not the space shuttle, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to screw up trying to make your own. I find it interesting that you used the Wile E Coyote example, as his inventions tended to turn out rather poorly for him.

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones

Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'm not sure a ban on homemade guns is a 2nd amendment issue. While I don't think the government should have the right to limit civilian access to firearms for personal protection, I think the government SHOULD step in when there are significant safety issues involved. This goes for anything, but particularly for inherently dangerous devices like firearms. The risks of a "homemade" gun that doesn't meet safety standards injuring the user or some innocent third party seems like a problem too large to ignore.

And I think that safety issues fall directly in the realm of interstate commerce, and I assume that idea has been upheld multiple times. I'm not sure the government should ban homemade machine guns because they are homemade, they should ban them because it doesn't seem too likely that they are safe.

A gun isn't a complicated tool. A look at any 3rd world country in a civil war will make apparent how far the Wile E Coyote School of Gunsmithing will go.

There are folks who build the Mujahideen AR15. Take a block of aluminum, some c clamps, and a drill and go to town, from the ground up.

On something like an AR15 making it into a machinegun is nothing dangerous. A person could make the parts themselves (no, you can't just file down the firing pin :roll and would be economically feasible. As it is right now, machineguns are a rich mans game. Unless you have tens of thousands to spend on one, forget it.
...

I'm not arguing that it's impossible, or even difficult, to do. I'm saying that it is certainly within the realm of possibility that some yahoo will NOT do it safely and will kill or injure himself or other people. A gun is not the space shuttle, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to screw up trying to make your own. I find it interesting that you used the Wile E Coyote example, as his inventions tended to turn out rather poorly for him.

I understand your concern (and the WECSOG is well known, I'm a graduate ; (really just a term used for home gunsmiths)), but there is nothing different from people making their guns right now which is 100% legal. Converting them to auto is no more dangerous than making it to begin with.

There IS a problem with people trying to convert them improperly, but no more so than people doing things now. Same clownhats that think they know what they are doing trying to smith a trigger job and having the gun go off out of battery. Good way to lose some facial features.

The other problem with not letting joe blow do it is that requiring someone to have the knowhow, IE a license, cannot get one. The ATF doesn't give manufacturing licenses to a guy with a workshop. Like I always say, the ATF is in the business of keeping you out of business.

Regardless, if some guy gets his face blown off tinkering in his tool shed, I'd say it's worth the 86 ban being repealed.

 

[BurningDog]

Nobody has noticed that the article is from 2003? This is a settled issue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U..._v._Stewart_%282003%29

"Citing the results of the Gonzales v. Raich case (June 5, 2005), the Supreme Court decided not to hear the case but rather to vacate the ruling below and remand it to court of appeals "in light of" Raich. The Ninth Circuit was thereby directed to reconsider Stewart and be guided in that reconsideration by Raich. Raich holds that Congress can use the Commerce Clause to ban homegrown marijuana; the implication of the Court's vacation is that Congress also has the power to criminalize the possession of homemade machine guns even though they were never involved in a commercial transaction."

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Implying what, the US (or any country) could WIN a nuclear war? Did you even see Wargames? Do you maintain there is such a thing as acceptable losses when the numbers of dead climb into the billions?

Without question, but for reasons other then what you think.

And not to mention, who would we nuke and why? This hypothetical is based on Nebor's understanding of the rights of individual possession of weapons under our own laws, and if we allow a US citizen possession of a nuke if they are rich enough, then when one crazy US citizen who happens to be muslim sets it off, you want to blame another country??

Lets nuke the Swedes. Never did trust them.

 

[piasabird]

I dont really want my neighbor to have 10 tons of TNT or C4 in his basement or storage bunker. Neither do I think storing nerve gas or Handgrenades to be such a good idea either. Nuclear weapons are for mass destruction, and not defense.

Some people, however, live in areas where there are a lot of criminals, and I dont think it is fair to take their guns away. That would just make them helpless targets for criminals.

Maybe what we need is tougher penalties for people who use guns in the commission of a crime, like a mandatory death penalty.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if your excitable next door neighbor was a rich radical muslim who owned a nuke...ok with you?

Implying said rich radical muslim would set it off....

Islam might end up short a couple hundred million worshippers.

Sure, hell give him 2.

Implying what, the US (or any country) could WIN a nuclear war? Did you even see Wargames? Do you maintain there is such a thing as acceptable losses when the numbers of dead climb into the billions?

And not to mention, who would we nuke and why? This hypothetical is based on Nebor's understanding of the rights of individual possession of weapons under our own laws, and if we allow a US citizen possession of a nuke if they are rich enough, then when one crazy US citizen who happens to be muslim sets it off, you want to blame another country??

You clearly lack a competitive instinct. The whole, US vs. them mentality. Even if you walk away limping, as long as the other guy doesn't walk away, you've won.

"Do you ever actually win any fights?"
"Nobody ever wins a fight"
- the Zen of Roadhouse

But back to my impossible hypothetical based on Nebor's tolerance of individual ownership of fission devices. Say nukes are legal. A US citizen owns one, and detonates it. Who do you blame but yourself for allowing such things into the hands of citizens? And if a citizen owns one, how hard would it be for those with "bad intentions" from killing him and stealing it? See the plot of [enter any movie starring steven segal or james bond]

This discussion has been had before. I'd rather be incinerated in a nuclear explosion as a free man, than live as an unarmed slave to the government.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if your excitable next door neighbor was a rich radical muslim who owned a nuke...ok with you?

Implying said rich radical muslim would set it off....

Islam might end up short a couple hundred million worshippers.

Sure, hell give him 2.

Implying what, the US (or any country) could WIN a nuclear war? Did you even see Wargames? Do you maintain there is such a thing as acceptable losses when the numbers of dead climb into the billions?

And not to mention, who would we nuke and why? This hypothetical is based on Nebor's understanding of the rights of individual possession of weapons under our own laws, and if we allow a US citizen possession of a nuke if they are rich enough, then when one crazy US citizen who happens to be muslim sets it off, you want to blame another country??

You clearly lack a competitive instinct. The whole, US vs. them mentality. Even if you walk away limping, as long as the other guy doesn't walk away, you've won.

"Do you ever actually win any fights?"
"Nobody ever wins a fight"
- the Zen of Roadhouse

But back to my impossible hypothetical based on Nebor's tolerance of individual ownership of fission devices. Say nukes are legal. A US citizen owns one, and detonates it. Who do you blame but yourself for allowing such things into the hands of citizens? And if a citizen owns one, how hard would it be for those with "bad intentions" from killing him and stealing it? See the plot of [enter any movie starring steven segal or james bond]

This discussion has been had before. I'd rather be incinerated in a nuclear explosion as a free man, than live as an unarmed slave to the government.

There's no middle ground in your view between outlawing nukes while allowing everyone guns? If the gov't had the temerity to ban individual ownership of a device capable of incinerating a few hundred thousand people in a nanosecond, then we would no longer be "free"???

 

[Pepsei]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Roughly 50% of the US population carries with them at all times the tool of a rapist. Say one of those people rapes a woman. Who do you blame but yourself for allowing such things into the hands of citizens? Castration at birth. It's the only sensible option.

that doesn't work, you're limiting me to one cock, i want a big black fully automatic one. and a small yellow one that i can conceal.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if your excitable next door neighbor was a rich radical muslim who owned a nuke...ok with you?

Implying said rich radical muslim would set it off....

Islam might end up short a couple hundred million worshippers.

Sure, hell give him 2.

Implying what, the US (or any country) could WIN a nuclear war? Did you even see Wargames? Do you maintain there is such a thing as acceptable losses when the numbers of dead climb into the billions?

And not to mention, who would we nuke and why? This hypothetical is based on Nebor's understanding of the rights of individual possession of weapons under our own laws, and if we allow a US citizen possession of a nuke if they are rich enough, then when one crazy US citizen who happens to be muslim sets it off, you want to blame another country??

You clearly lack a competitive instinct. The whole, US vs. them mentality. Even if you walk away limping, as long as the other guy doesn't walk away, you've won.

"Do you ever actually win any fights?"
"Nobody ever wins a fight"
- the Zen of Roadhouse

But back to my impossible hypothetical based on Nebor's tolerance of individual ownership of fission devices. Say nukes are legal. A US citizen owns one, and detonates it. Who do you blame but yourself for allowing such things into the hands of citizens? And if a citizen owns one, how hard would it be for those with "bad intentions" from killing him and stealing it? See the plot of [enter any movie starring steven segal or james bond]

This discussion has been had before. I'd rather be incinerated in a nuclear explosion as a free man, than live as an unarmed slave to the government.

There's no middle ground in your view between outlawing nukes while allowing everyone guns? If the gov't had the temerity to ban individual ownership of a device capable of incinerating a few hundred thousand people in a nanosecond, then we would no longer be "free"???

I'm not the one that made that argument, shira was.

I tend to feel that heavy artillery, such as nuclear bombs and such, are not "arms" but "ordinance," and thus can be regulated. However, if someone wants to say, "Well everyone might as well have nukes" when I say that we ought to be able to own automatic weapons, I'm going to side for freedom as opposed to oppression, even if common sense goes out the window.

This thread isn't about people owning nuclear weapons, it's about people owning\making machine guns. Someone decided that machine guns are comparable to nukes and derailed it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if your excitable next door neighbor was a rich radical muslim who owned a nuke...ok with you?

Implying said rich radical muslim would set it off....

Islam might end up short a couple hundred million worshippers.

Sure, hell give him 2.

Implying what, the US (or any country) could WIN a nuclear war? Did you even see Wargames? Do you maintain there is such a thing as acceptable losses when the numbers of dead climb into the billions?

And not to mention, who would we nuke and why? This hypothetical is based on Nebor's understanding of the rights of individual possession of weapons under our own laws, and if we allow a US citizen possession of a nuke if they are rich enough, then when one crazy US citizen who happens to be muslim sets it off, you want to blame another country??

You clearly lack a competitive instinct. The whole, US vs. them mentality. Even if you walk away limping, as long as the other guy doesn't walk away, you've won.

"Do you ever actually win any fights?"
"Nobody ever wins a fight"
- the Zen of Roadhouse

But back to my impossible hypothetical based on Nebor's tolerance of individual ownership of fission devices. Say nukes are legal. A US citizen owns one, and detonates it. Who do you blame but yourself for allowing such things into the hands of citizens? And if a citizen owns one, how hard would it be for those with "bad intentions" from killing him and stealing it? See the plot of [enter any movie starring steven segal or james bond]

This discussion has been had before. I'd rather be incinerated in a nuclear explosion as a free man, than live as an unarmed slave to the government.

There's no middle ground in your view between outlawing nukes while allowing everyone guns? If the gov't had the temerity to ban individual ownership of a device capable of incinerating a few hundred thousand people in a nanosecond, then we would no longer be "free"???

I'm not the one that made that argument, shira was.

I tend to feel that heavy artillery, such as nuclear bombs and such, are not "arms" but "ordinance," and thus can be regulated. However, if someone wants to say, "Well everyone might as well have nukes" when I say that we ought to be able to own automatic weapons, I'm going to side for freedom as opposed to oppression, even if common sense goes out the window.

This thread isn't about people owning nuclear weapons, it's about people owning\making machine guns. Someone decided that machine guns are comparable to nukes and derailed it.

Nonsense. There's a principle at work here: Along the continuum from the smallest-caliber, lowest-power, single-shot pellet pistol to hand-launched nuclear devices there is a point where almost everyone would agree that it's reasonable for the government to say, "that weapon is too destructive/dangerous to allow a private individual to own it."

You seem to forget that the courts consistently rule that various rights/liberties are NOT absolute: There's no absolute right to free speech (you can't slander, libel, make threats, incite violence or chaos, or reveal classified information with impunity). There's no absolute right to engage in religious practices if those practices violate laws that promulgate reasonable government interests. And an individual's "freedom to own weaponry" (assuming that such a freedom exists in the first place - a highly debatable viewpoint) must be balanced against the rights/interest's of other individuals - safety and domestic tranquility, for example.

My purpose in mentioning nuclear weaponry was to establish that there is a valid line that divides "these weapons are NOT so dangerous that they unacceptably infringe on other rights/freedoms" from "these weapons ARE sufficiently dangerous that they unacceptably infringe on other rights/freedoms." And once you acknowledge the legitimacy of such a line, you also have to acknowledge that it's a judgment call as to where the line actually should be drawn, and that the line might well reasonably be drawn on EITHER side of homemade machine guns along the continuum of weaponry.

 

[nageov3t]

I wish it was somehow possible to suspend the second amendment for florida and texas only.

for whatever reason, anyone else having guns doesn't bother me as much as people from those states

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I wish it was somehow possible to suspend the second amendment for florida and texas only.

for whatever reason, anyone else having guns doesn't bother me as much as people from those states

Fine, as long as we suspend the first amendment for California and New York.

 

[marincounty]

Remember, this is a decision by the "whacko" Ninth Circuit, where many of their decisions are overturned by the conservative Supreme Court.
I hope you also support the ninth circuit decision that the pledge of allegiance is unconstitutional because of reference to god.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: sirjonk
And if your excitable next door neighbor was a rich radical muslim who owned a nuke...ok with you?

Implying said rich radical muslim would set it off....

Islam might end up short a couple hundred million worshippers.

Sure, hell give him 2.

Implying what, the US (or any country) could WIN a nuclear war? Did you even see Wargames? Do you maintain there is such a thing as acceptable losses when the numbers of dead climb into the billions?

And not to mention, who would we nuke and why? This hypothetical is based on Nebor's understanding of the rights of individual possession of weapons under our own laws, and if we allow a US citizen possession of a nuke if they are rich enough, then when one crazy US citizen who happens to be muslim sets it off, you want to blame another country??

You clearly lack a competitive instinct. The whole, US vs. them mentality. Even if you walk away limping, as long as the other guy doesn't walk away, you've won.

"Do you ever actually win any fights?"
"Nobody ever wins a fight"
- the Zen of Roadhouse

But back to my impossible hypothetical based on Nebor's tolerance of individual ownership of fission devices. Say nukes are legal. A US citizen owns one, and detonates it. Who do you blame but yourself for allowing such things into the hands of citizens? And if a citizen owns one, how hard would it be for those with "bad intentions" from killing him and stealing it? See the plot of [enter any movie starring steven segal or james bond]

This discussion has been had before. I'd rather be incinerated in a nuclear explosion as a free man, than live as an unarmed slave to the government.

There's no middle ground in your view between outlawing nukes while allowing everyone guns? If the gov't had the temerity to ban individual ownership of a device capable of incinerating a few hundred thousand people in a nanosecond, then we would no longer be "free"???

I'm not the one that made that argument, shira was.

I tend to feel that heavy artillery, such as nuclear bombs and such, are not "arms" but "ordinance," and thus can be regulated. However, if someone wants to say, "Well everyone might as well have nukes" when I say that we ought to be able to own automatic weapons, I'm going to side for freedom as opposed to oppression, even if common sense goes out the window.

This thread isn't about people owning nuclear weapons, it's about people owning\making machine guns. Someone decided that machine guns are comparable to nukes and derailed it.

Nonsense. There's a principle at work here: Along the continuum from the smallest-caliber, lowest-power, single-shot pellet pistol to hand-launched nuclear devices there is a point where almost everyone would agree that it's reasonable for the government to say, "that weapon is too destructive/dangerous to allow a private individual to own it."

You seem to forget that the courts consistently rule that various rights/liberties are NOT absolute: There's no absolute right to free speech (you can't slander, libel, make threats, incite violence or chaos, or reveal classified information with impunity). There's no absolute right to engage in religious practices if those practices violate laws that promulgate reasonable government interests. And an individual's "freedom to own weaponry" (assuming that such a freedom exists in the first place - a highly debatable viewpoint) must be balanced against the rights/interest's of other individuals - safety and domestic tranquility, for example.

My purpose in mentioning nuclear weaponry was to establish that there is a valid line that divides "these weapons are NOT so dangerous that they unacceptably infringe on other rights/freedoms" from "these weapons ARE sufficiently dangerous that they unacceptably infringe on other rights/freedoms." And once you acknowledge the legitimacy of such a line, you also have to acknowledge that it's a judgment call as to where the line actually should be drawn, and that the line might well reasonably be drawn on EITHER side of homemade machine guns along the continuum of weaponry.

And I'm saying I'd sooner have no line drawn than a line drawn that bans machine guns, PARTICULARLY when the government\police can still have them.