Gun Control

Insanely Broad Definition of 'Assault Weapon' Moves From Illinois Village to Oregon Ballot Initiative

Peashooter prohibitions are on the rise.

|

Karin Hildebrand Lau/Dreamstime.com

The insanely broad "assault weapons" definition used by the small town of Deerfield, Illinois, to prohibit common peashooters has now migrated to the entire state of Oregon.

This week activists in support of Initiative 43 received a draft ballot title from the state's attorney general, which describes the initiative as criminalizing the "possession or transfer of 'assault weapons' (defined) or 'large capacity magazines' (defined), with exceptions."

As the parentheticals suggest, there is a lot in a name.

This proposed ban—which is being pushed by an interfaith coalition of Portland-area clergymen—gives a couple definitions for assault weapons.

The first is the fairly typical definition of any weapon that can accept a detachable magazine and has one of several additional features, including a folding stock, pistol grip, or muzzle brake.

The second definition, however, bans any "any semiautomatic, centerfire or rimfire rifle with a fixed magazine, that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition." This sweeping language catches up not just scary looking AR-15's, but also encompasses common target shooting rifles that are particularly ill-suited to the commission of any gun crimes.

For instance, it includes rifles like the Marlin Model 60, a semi-automatic .22 rifle that has been available since the 1960s, and which promotional materials describe as the "most popular .22 in the world" with millions sold. Modern versions of the Model 60 can hold 14 rounds in a tubular fixed magazine.

Whether the backers of this assault weapons ban initiative are intentionally trying to prohibit weapons like the Marlin Model 60 is kind of fuzzy.

Oregon's Initiative 43 specifically exempts ".22 caliber tube ammunition feeding devices" from being considered as prohibited "large capacity magazines."

That would seem to be an attempt to exempt rifles like the Marlin Model 60 from the ban. Yet that exemption appears only in the section devoted to "large capacity magazines." It does not modify the section containing the blanket definition of "assault weapon" as any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine with a capacity of over 10 rounds. In other words, when read in its entirely, the law's text defines the Marlin Model 60 as a prohibited assault weapon.

By contrast, a federal assault weapons ban currently being pushed by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) makes sure to exempt guns like the Marlin Model 60 with its definition of assault weapon as "a semiautomatic rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition."

This makes Oregon's Initiative 43 similar to the sloppily drafted Deerfield, Illinois, assault weapons ban which included both catch-all and carve-out provisions.

That such contradictory language would pop up in two separate pieces of legislation is a natural consequence of a gun control movement looking to quickly capitalize on the political momentum created by mass shootings to just "do something."

That sense of urgency can certainly be found in the comments of Mark Knutson, a Lutheran minister and one of the chief petitioners for Oregon assault weapons initiative. "Young people in this country are crying out. This is the moment in time where we need to step alongside them as adults and do our part with them," Knutson told the Associated Press in March, while comparing his effort to ban target shooting rifles to the civil rights movement.

The public has until May 8th to comment on the draft ballot title, at which point it becomes official. The campaign would then have until July 6 to collect the 88,000 needed signatures to qualify for the November ballot.

If passed, the initiative would give gunowners 120 days to rid themselves of their assault weapons, after which they would be guilty of a Class B Felony and subject to up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

Advertisement

NEXT: Do You Really Need a Degree to Work in Day Care?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. This prospective ban?which is being pushed by an interfaith coalition of Portland-area clergymen?gives a couple definitions for assault weapons

    God is a lie.

    1. Why don’t these clergymen just pray the guns away? Seems like a reasonable request of an omnipotent, omniscient God.

      1. God wants the state to kick down your doors and shoot you if you don’t give up your guns, because he loves us.

        1. “God is the ultimate superpower.” – Julian Assange

      2. Look, if you can’t pray the gay away, what makes you think you can pray the guns away?

        1. Funniest, if not the best, comment of the day.

      3. How do you think God makes things happen?

        1. Spell it right… It’s GAWD, nor God!!! GAWD works by making us vote socialist / communist. GAWD’s finest works right now are N. Korea and Venezuela. Let us PRAISE GAWD!!!

          Scienfoology Song? GAWD = Government Almighty’s Wrath Delivers

          Government loves me, This I know,
          For the Government tells me so,
          Little ones to GAWD belong,
          We are weak, but GAWD is strong!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          GAWD does love me, yes indeed,
          Keeps me safe, and gives me feed,
          Shelters me from bad drugs and weed,
          And gives me all that I might need!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

          DEA, CIA, KGB,
          Our protectors, they will be,
          FBI, TSA, and FDA,
          With us, astride us, in every way!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          Yes, Guv-Mint loves me!
          My Nannies tell me so!

        2. He probably handed the bill directly to Sen Feinstein on 10,000 stone tablets.

          Laws have sure changed in the last ~4000 years.

    2. It’s being pushed by an interfaith coalition of Portland-area clergyman. It’s being funded by Michael Bloomberg and his Everytown clownshow.

  2. There you go Britches, gunsplaining to politicians again. Who put you up to this??? The NRA?

  3. I’ve actually got a Model 60. Fun gun. Guess I won’t be moving to Oregon.

    1. Same here, plus an old Marlin Papoose and several Ruger 10/22 variants they’d have a cardiac over.

      1. I have both of those. Don’t use them much, though. When I find the time to shoot, it’s all about blasting shells at moving targets for me.

      2. yup. Best hurry on across the river and buy up a cache of Ruger’s 25 round mags for those 10/.22 rifles. I guess my Browing High Powers, Beretta 92’s and 96’s, any double stack .45 ACP…..

        they’d really have a cow over some of the old military rifles of late WW 2 and since vintage….. some of them have 20 and 30 round capacity mags that hold REALLY powerful rounds, unlike the too-feeble-to-take-deer-with “assault rifles” being so insanely demonised.

    2. I think it was Esquire, GQ or some such foppish excuse for a male publication who ran a story about a year ago listing the “10 most dangers assault rifles.” It included the 10/22.

      1. I think I read somewhere that more people are killed by .22 long rifle than any other round.

        1. Probably because some dork keeps calling them “peashooters” so people aren’t as careful as they should be.

        2. Well 5.56 NATO is a 22 caliber round, so yeah that makes sense.

          1. “.22 Long rifle”

            1. Warning on the rimfire box: Range 1 1/2 miles Be Careful.
              Fine print: 1255 fps at muzzle, 1017 fps at 100 yds. Energy 140 ft-lbs at muzzle, 92 ft lbs at 100 yds.

              Nato 5.56: 3,025 ft/s, 1,709 J (1260 ft lbs)
              The round can better penetrate steel, brick, concrete, and masonry walls, as well as body armor and sheet metal. It penetrates 3?8 in (9.5 mm) of mild steel at 350 meters

              Yep, damn near the same – – – – – – –

            2. vs. .223/5.56; there is a difference

        3. You may think you read it but it’s not true. In a Philadelphia study conducted by the Univ of Penn, the most common caliber used in homicides was the .38 revolver (44%). Five years later, they repeated the study and the 9mm now topped the list. In both iterations, .22s were involved with only 15%.

          The Virginia Dept of Corrections conducted a similar study. The highest percentage (19%) were .38s. Only 10% were .22s.

          Hawaii conducted a similar study across multiple years. They also found 9mm at the top of the list (19%). .22s weren’t in the list at all.

          The ATF published a report listing the “top 10 guns used in crimes in the US”. .38s took positions 1, 3, 9 and 10. 9mms were in positions 2, 6 and 8. There are no .22s in the list.

          1. “.38s took positions 1, 3, 9 and 10.”

            Actually 3,9, and 10 were .380s. Way way different than .38s. #7 was a .357 which allows one to use .38s as well though.

        4. I’ve seen that claim as well, and believe it. That round is so commin I’ll bet a good portioin of all firearms in the naiton are chambered for that. Hundreds of rifles and pistols, many of them resembling the “scary” outline of the “assault weapons” being demonised.

    3. It is fun target plinker.

      Of course, they are relying on the fact that no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against someone for possessing a nearly toy gun like that. And when they do, it will be obvious the guy deserves it.

      1. they are relying on the fact that no reasonable prosecutor….
        Which gets you in trouble when the prosecutor isn’t reasonable, as will inevitably happen. You’re relying on non-enforcement of the law, which will end when some prosecutor wants to exercise a grudge.

  4. Animism causes my insanely broad peashooter to rise, if you know what I mean.

    1. I always figured you were sporting a tuna can.

      1. Like Winston’s mom always says – short and thick does the trick.

        1. Man, i forgot about Winston’s mom. Just like Winston’s dad did.

          1. We still have Paul’s mom, and her semen.

    2. It actually shoots peas? Seriously? That is somewhere between gross and grossly compelling.

  5. If passed, the initiative would give gunowners 120 days to rid themselves of their assault weapons, after which they would be guilty of a Class B Felony and subject to up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

    And they’ll enforce this how, exactly? In a way I kind of miss the “good old days” when gun grabbers would just lie to your face and claim that “no one is coming for your guns and no one is going to put you in jail, you bitter clinger.” /sarc

    I can’t wait for the no-knock SWAT raids to confiscate the guns and round up the “armed criminals” in possession of them. That should really go well.

    1. If they found out you have an assault weapon after 120 days you be arrested for a felony. Duh and/or hello.

      1. Riiiiiight, it’ll be just that easy. And if anyone does get shot because the cops took the “totally reasonable” precaution of sending in the SWAT team to arrest the armed and dangerous felon* oh well, after all they were a dangerous armed felon and those Heroes in Blue have to get home safe at night. That’s all that matters.

        Of course, that’s what a lot of the gun grabbers really want. The ones that don’t are stupid enough to believe they can just pass a magic law and *poof* all the EVUL SCARY GUNZ go bye bye.

        *Who may not have ever done anything illegal in their entire lives, but have overnight been turned into a “dangerous felon”

      2. That might work in the upper class Portland neighborhoods. Out in the country it will lead to firefights, maybe even straight up ambushes of cops.

        These assholes really want a civil war.

        1. Out in the country it will lead to firefights, maybe even straight up ambushes of cops.

          I find that rather difficult to believe. I think what is more likely is that it would lead to mass non-compliance, like what happened in Connecticut.

          1. CT mainly stayed at ‘mass non-compliance’ because the cops weren’t pressured to enforce the law.

            Pressure them and some will. And then some will get shot. And once some get shot the rest will be more willing to jump in on enforcement – thin blue line and all that. Its one thing for the proles to not obey a law when a cop isn’t around, its another to directly challenge their power.

            1. Once 1 gets shot, they might get enthusiastic. After 20 or 30 are dead and locals are hunting cops with rifles, they’ll lose interest real quick.

            2. Again I find that hard to believe. For one, the people who screech the loudest about gun rights also happen to be the ones who tend to defer to police authority. Second, that hasn’t happened anywhere else – not even the Bundys were going around shooting cops.

              1. What will happen, politically, when those enthusiastic cops kill a few unarmed bystanders? Will the nice liberals who support gun control continue to support it if there’s much human collateral damage? Remember back in the ’90s, gun control advocates in the media and in Congress had to spin furiously after Ruby Ridge and Waco in hopes public support for restrictive gun laws wouldn’t take a hit. That will be a lot harder now in the internet and cell-phone camera era. Like the Prohibitionists in the early 20th century, the anti-gunners tend to underestimate how much trouble actually enforcing restrictive gun laws will stir up, and just assume everyone will meekly obey. Didn’t work with Prohibition, and I don’t think it will work with gun control, which is why many(most?) anti-gunners favor some kind of supply-side restrictions which won’t attempt to take gus away from people who acquired them lawfully.

              2. maybe in your dream world of a decade or three back…. but there has definitely been an awakening since the kinyun ascended to the throne temporarily. Consider this: when he seized the reins, there were some number of known firearms in the hands of the public. In the eight years he held tht position, that number more than doubled. Even as he and his minions worked overtime to demonise guns, stage false flag events to turn common folk agaisnt them, characterised the “black and ugly” guns as “assault weapons” thus demonising them and turn the public against them, and yet people did not just “continue” to buy guns, but bought them in numbers formerly unimagineable. And taht pace continues. People are beginning to comprehend that the demonising of guns is a farce…. First time gun buyers are at record high levels. Handgun Mother May I Cards are as well, as is the number of states not even demanding those costly permission slips to simply exercise their right to arms.

            3. There are a lot of people who take molon labe dead seriously.

          2. I find that rather difficult to believe. I think what is more likely is that it would lead to mass non-compliance, like what happened in Connecticut.

            Right up to the point where they attempt to enforce it.

            And for what it’s worth, that’s my personal line in the sand.

          3. Yeah, I very much doubt they will vigorously enforce it if the law passes. You just can’t unless you do want a civil war. Even Europe is full of illegal guns that people never turned in.

            1. It will be one of those things that will be enforced when people call the cops for help.

              “Your home was burglarized? K. Mind if I have a look around? What’s in the cabinet? What do you know, an illegal gun. You’re under arrest.”

              1. in rural Oregon THAT will be the spark to light the match of armed uprising and open season on coppers where they DO tend to do such things. Don’t confuse Portland/Salem/Eugene wit “Oregon”. Those three cities may (and do) outvote the rest of the state. But the rest of the state WILL “outvote” those three when it comes to such things. My nickel is on the fact that most sheriffs statewide will simply be too occupied with REAL crime to bother enforcing this stupid law. Many of these sheriffs have gone on local TeeVee to advise their residents to arm themselves, as we’re spread too thin to be considered able to protect you in your time of need. Call 911 AFTER you’ve picked up your own self-defense weapon of choice. These sheriffs and their deputies will not enforce the AWB if that type of weapon was used to deal with the criminal trying to rob, break in, rape, harm, you or your companions.

            2. EVEN IF there is “vigorous enforcement”, I don’t think you will have bunches of dead cops. Maybe a few but that’s it. You’re going to have people hiding their guns, that’s all.

            3. That’s the thing that worries me. They put it on the books, don’t actively enforce it, but when you get swept up in a noise complaint, or speeding, or anything that will give cops access, they will find said firearms, and charge you. They won’t be active swat raids so people won’t get spooked or defensive, there won’t be anything to fight against. Just a new tool to threaten punishment with in order to coerce the charged into being good little helpers and snitching on anyone they can think of to stay out of prison.. you know, like the drug war.

          4. I’ll lay high stakes at very long odds most sheriffs outside of Multnomah County will put this new “law” right next to the last one Bloomie bought them.. the one about “universal backgound checks”, even for private sales or when Charlie comes to visit me at my house, and we want to do some tin can murdering in MY backyard, where such activity is both safe and legal.

            Just like the Nevada sheriffs also said… and the state’s AtG. “Unenforceable” so we will ignore it.

            Nullificatioin at its best.

            BUT.. we’ll see if the People of Oregon will rise up and squash this like the miserable bug it is.

    2. And they’ll enforce this how, exactly?

      The Jackboots of progressivism will make door-to-door visits. Because that’s what a tolerant, egalitarian government looks like.

      1. The war on alcohol went so well.

        The war on drugs has been going so well.

        The war on guns will be… epic.

        1. Certainly memorable!

        2. Thanks! Now I have a ranging war-on.

      2. Hey, it’s what they do for dog licenses in my county.
        This isn’t the stretch you think it is.

        1. Guns are a lot easier to hide than dogs.

    3. They’ll just wait for you to take it out in public, say to a national forest for some plinking. Then they’ll plea bargain you down to just a few thousand dollars.

      They don’t give a shit about the gun. They just want your money and another way to harass you.

    4. It won’t be enforced. There is an Oregon supreme court opinion on this matter that will cause the law to be declared unconstitutional forthwith. These pastors would have better luck passing a law outlawing abortion.

      1. Oregon v. Kessler, in 289 Ore (1980) — I don’t have the page number (you’ll have to look that up).

  6. Whether the backers of this assault weapons ban initiative are intentionally trying to prohibit weapons like the Marlin Model 60 is kind of fuzzy.

    It’s not what their intentions are, it’s that they don’t care. The gun control movement has always been a bit… Pope Cistercian, if you will.

    Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius. (Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own)

    1. The gun control movement has always been a bit… Pope Cistercian, if you will.

      Yup. I can’t count the number of times I heard questions like, “How can IL gun laws prevent this going forward?” and “What do we have to do to make IL gun laws work in a situation like this?” broadcast in the wake of the TN Wafflehouse shooting. It’s almost like some people want open borders just so they can go purge their enemies.

      1. Why can’t people just accept that you can’t prevent crazy people from doing shitty things? It’s pretty amazing that our society is as peaceful and stable as it is. Just be happy about that.

        1. And try not to fuck it up too badly.

          1. Sure does seem that in the US, if something bad happens (or does not turn out as great as you think it should), the belief is that someone must have done something wrong.
            That bad things can/do happen, even if everything is done perfectly, is entirely absent even as a concept.

  7. Your bans are unconstitutional.

    FUCK OFF SLAVERS!

    1. Yeah.. you tell ’em! It’s totally stopped them before…. totally!

        1. Well, not really…

          “shall not be infringed” is a pretty inflexible metric that doesn’t allow for banning a gun with “high capacity magazine and folding stock”.

          Not infringed. That’s straightforward and simple. The courts, legislatures, executive branch functionaries and heads have all decided that there is a secret “unless we feel like it” subordinate clause attached to that amendment. Any reasonable and honest jurist would ask “does this proposed law act so as to limit or undermine (the right to keep and bear arms)?” simply using the dictionary definition of “infringe”.

          Banning guns with magazines of any size undoubtedly acts so as to limit the right to keep and bear arms. Case closed, we are done here. Absent a constitutional amendment, every gun control law is clearly and unambiguously unconstitutional at the federal level. With the 14th, it is at least arguable that those laws are unconstitutional as well.

          Any competent jurist would toss the 1968 Gun Control Act (which was passed in response to the Kennedy assassination – performed not with an assault weapon, but with a mail order rifle… that’s why it bans mail order guns. Moral panics gonna moral panic, yo!).

          1. Repeat after me: If a law acts to limit or undermine the ability of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms, it is unconstitutional. It is really, really simple. The entire amendment is only one sentence. And yet we have a plethora of “common sense gun regulations” that limits or undermines the ability of the people to keep and bear arms.

            1. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the Feds from disarming the state militias. It doesn’t prevent the states from disarming themselves.

                1. shall not be infringed.

                  You seem to confuse that with the arms that are protected. Educate yourself on the Constitution.

              1. bullshit.

              2. “The right of the people” is also pretty important.

              3. Militia, not state militia.
                The militia is not under control of any government until after the members have voted to accept a temporary and limited subordination to a governmental entity.
                The Governors can ‘call out the militia’, but the militia decides if they will answer the call.

                That is why the National Guard is not a militia, it is an US Army unit, funded by, trained by, and subject the control of the National government. The Guard members cannot refuse a summons to active duty. Militia members can refuse to participate.

                1. Militia, not state militia.

                  State militia. Documented here..

              4. And then they passed the 14th, which makes it more complicated. Perhaps even completely unworkable. But there it is.

              5. True, Bubba, true; however, you have an independent FEDERAL right to keep and bear arms that arises from the same source as the right the Second Amendment recognizes, viz., the Treason Clause.

                See Hamilton’s The Federalist # 28 for more on this. Compare with the same subject discussed in Luther Martin’s Genuine Information.

            2. Repeat after me: If a law acts to limit or undermine the ability of ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms, it is unconstitutional. It is really, really simple

              Repeat after me: The militia clause proves you wrong. And that’s Scalia

              Educate yourself on the Constitution.

              1. You could pull in every jurist on the planet to explain how it depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is, and they’d still be wrong. It is one sentence. It says “shall not be infringed”. It isn’t complicated.

                The knock-on consequences might be complicated, or completely untenable even. But that doesn’t change the law. We just decided to ignore the law because it isn’t good policy. And that is a bad policy. If the law doesn’t work, you gotta change the law. You don’t just agree to ignore it.

                1. It says “shall not be infringed”. It isn’t complicated.

                  So,why are you so confused? The ISSUE is ownership of WHICH arms shall not be infringed. On what basis do you allege the right IS threatened with infringement?

                  Evasion and diversion are dishonest. It isn’t complicated.

          2. Well, not really…

            My point is that gun rights have gotten significantly better (on the whole) in the US over the past 20 years. A large part of that is that these, clearly unconstitutional, laws have been challenged. Whether that trend continues is anyone’s guess.

            I tend to side with Ken on this. Arguing semantics is secondary. What constitutes an “assault weapon”… Whether the law would stop gun violence… It’s all superfluous, as its clearly unconstitutional.

            You want to ban arms (any arms)? FUCK YOU, amend the constitution. Until then, kiss my ass.

            1. FUCK YOU, amend the constitution.

              Not needed. And you’re only 79 years out of date.

              Until then, kiss my ass.

              Not for me personally, but get your head out of it.

              1. No, he’s right. Deciding to just ignore the constitution because it is a bad idea to let everyone run around with tommy guns is a dangerous and stupid way of doing things. Just amend the thing so that you have the power to restrict weapons within certain limits.

                Saying “but the supreme court decided” might be true, but it doesn’t address the issue. No amount of Stare Decisis can change the fact that the constitution is crystal clear on this topic.

                This is the same way the Federal government magicked their way into having the power to regulate the growth of cannabis in your back yard. The courts have confused “this is really important” and “this is a really good idea” with constitutional. And they have likewise confused “this is a bad idea” or “this is really bad policy” with unconstitutional.

                In doing this they have completely undermined the foundation of our federal system of government. And the entire concept of the constitution – that we would be a nation of laws and not a nation of men – is gone.

                1. Saying “but the supreme court decided” might be true, but it doesn’t address the issue

                  That’s their job. If you absolutely cannot abide by our Constitution, the only honorable alternative is for you to emigrate. Buh-bye.

                  Your ranting cannot cannot match Scalia’s arguments, — an originalist — or McReynolds (1939) — and your “living constitution” cannot delete the militia clause.

                  we would be a nation of laws and not a nation of men – is gone.

                  Says the guy who DEMANDS a nation of men … you. Your Napoleon Complex.

                  The Founders enshrined consent of the governed, not consent of the bellowers.

          3. I swear to God if you’ve lit the Hihn signal and bring him in here to misquote Scalia in Heller about Miller and bitch about how none of us are contributing to the discussion or solving the problem, I’m going to purchase a Mossberg 590 or Remington 870 Tac-14 DM just to prove him wrong!

            1. Yours is the fist lie I can prove. Why do you want to kill me, smowflake?

          4. or so it would seem if you buy the spin that one lone shooter fired three or more rounds, from different calibre rifles, each of the three positions being a considerable distance apart and ranging in three very different directions from the location of the rounds that hit. And no, that was NOT a “mail order rifle” actually used. The one planted in the Texas School Depository may have been such a throwdown…. but that one could NOT have been used, or certainly not the ONLY one used.

          5. The courts, legislatures, executive branch functionaries and heads have all decided that there is a secret “unless we feel like it” subordinate clause attached to that amendment.

            Scalia says it’s the militia clause. I’ll take him over your conspiracy.

            1. Yeah….. and the same group decided that regulating interstate commerce means that they can outlaw growing your own food in your own back yard for your own consumption.

              These are rationalizations. You don’t have to consult the Oracle of Delphi to find out if the constitution allows the state to outlaw weapons with certain styles of attachments. All you have to do is have the ability to read and use it.

              You’ve bought in to the lie they tell themselves. They looked at the law as it is written and decided that it was too constricting and completely unworkable. And instead of kicking it back to the legislature to fix, they just decided that they’d hold that it doesn’t really mean what it says.

              That’s what we are saying. That doing things this way is a bad idea. A really, really bad idea. Consult the Federalist Papers and other contemporary writings to see why this is a path to tyranny.

              Look, you are right… the “shall not be infringed” thing is way too restrictive on the government. But the answer to this is to change the law, not to just decide to ignore it.

              1. Yeah….. and the same group decided that regulating interstate commerce means that they can outlaw growing your own food in your own back yard for your own consumption.

                Relevance?

                These are rationalizations.

                Like the bullshit you opened with?

                You don’t have to consult the Oracle of Delphi to find out if the constitution allows the state to outlaw weapons with certain styles of attachments. All you have to do is have the ability to read and use it.

                Now read the CONSTITUTION, because The Exalted You doesn’t decide what it means.

                Scalia being THE most honored originalist, perhaps ever, further demolishes your authoritarian assertions.

        1. What’s hilarious about this whole section is Hihn posting over and over about Scalia and Heller and etc and everyone is basically ignoring him. So he’s posting more frantically.

          1. The assholes ignore being PROVEN wrong.
            And are not “everyone” (sneer0

  8. Yes, you do need to step us as adults and “do something”. You need to be adults! That means teaching these “young people” what civil rights are really about. It means demonstrating the calm deliberation and thoughtful debate that are supposed to be aspects of adulthood. It explicitly mean not reacting emotionally to the latest trigger and not rushing off to “do something” without full regard for the consequences.

    1. Because that’s why the Framers let us keep our guns. So when the tyrants come to take them away, even piecemeal, we can calmly deliberate with them.

      1. the Framers let us keep our guns.

        LET us? More like, they knew that they had no more right to disarm us than King George did.

        -jcr

      2. we can calmly deliberate with them.

        Something like aggressive negotiations

    2. should be “step up“…

    3. That means teaching these “young people” what civil rights are really about.

      I’m sure this is bullshit, but it was an uplifting story nonetheless.

    4. Yeah, but that’s just buying in to the bullshit story.

      The truth is that these guys were gun control advocates long before any of these events occurred and they are merely seizing the moment to accomplish their personal agenda. The kids aren’t “crying out” for gun control: some activist types have gotten a subset of kids all riled up about gun control by framing things in a “you are being targeted for murder” way.

      1. meanwhile silencing, marginalising, and suppressing the OTHER kids that are very much in favour of an armed and trained citizenry, and the keeping and use of arms themselves. As in that young man got himself expelled for going with his Dad to an afternoon at the gun range to do some plinking. THOSE voices are systematically being suppressed in favour of the Hogg Boy and Emma Cuabana types, the ones bought and paid for, and holding the wrong ends of the puppet strings.

  9. Armchair quarterbacks in Oregon think this ban making it the ballot would be a boon for Oregon because it would summon a red wave. I hope we don’t get to find out if they’re right.

  10. any weapon that can accept a detachable magazine and has one of several additional features, including a folding stock, pistol grip, or muzzle brake.

    Doesn’t this describe any semi-automatic pistol?

    1. They’ll say no, up until the law is ratified.

      1. We have to pass the bill to find out what kinds of guns it bans.

    2. They’ll say the difference is that pistols fire pistol cartridges, not those nasty, dangerous, high-powered ones like .22LR.

      Not understanding that the distinction between ‘pistol cartridge’ and ‘rifle cartridge’ is one of common use and not objective categories.

      1. Which will, of course, lead to zealous prosecutors using this law to make a name for themselves as fearless defenders of The People when they start to go after a poor black man for having a 9mm pistol in his home.

      2. Too bad about 9mm & 375.
        Oh, and .22 cal.
        Wait, maybe .45 cal as well.
        You know, lots of cartridges will fit pistols and rifles; whodathunkit?

      3. but .22 LR is the round used exclusively in quite a number of rifles AND pistols AND revolvers. Same with .357 Mag, .38 Spl, .45 ACP, 9 x 19 mm, .44 Mag, 7.62 x 39, .410 Ga shotgun

  11. Whether the backers of this assault weapons ban initiative are intentionally trying to prohibit weapons like the Marlin Model 60 is kind of fuzzy.

    It’s not fuzzy at all. They’re trying to fully disarm the public, and any pretense to the contrary is nothing but slimy deception on their part.

    -jcr

    1. No it’s not fuzzy. 20 years ago New Jersey convicted a competitive shooter for owning a .22 Marlin. They did it because they hate civilians who can shoot, and it made a great excuse for the cops to steal all his guns.

      http://www.marlinforum.com/articles/n…..rifles.22/

      1. New Jersey is the re-constituted USSR.

  12. “”For instance, it includes rifles like the Marlin Model 60, a semi-automatic .22 rifle that has been available since the 1960s, and which promotional materials describe as the “most popular .22 in the world” with millions sold.””

    Holy crap. I have one of those! Only good for killing squirrels and other varmints.

    The problem with these assault weapon bans, like most legislation, is that they don’t go the core of the problem, they only futz about with surface details. The magazines and stocks and shit are just the surface details. The core problem, or so I am led to believe, is the availability of military firearms to the general public. It’s not the stock or the magazine or the muzzle that makes a gun military. A fully automatic weapon counts. But it gets a lot fuzzier when you come to semi-automatics.

    I have my dad’s WWII service rifle. An M1 Garand. Technically it’s a military firearm. But it doesn’t meet most assault weapon definitions due to the lack of folding stock, muzzle brake, scary camo painting, etc. Neither is it magazine size. The original M1 used 8 round clips, with with clip pre-loaded, so one could slap in a new clip fast enough that magazine size didn’t matter.

    I’m left with one solutions: Trying to ban non-automatic weapons is pointless, as any attempt is going to end up lumping in too many non-military weapons and will violating the First Amendment. It’s an unwinnable approach.

    1. Only good for killing squirrels and other varmints.

      I am assured that the .22 kill more people *around the world* than all the other guns combined. I am assured of this.

    2. The ban will address the Marlin model 60, but not what Patton described as the “greatest battle implement ever invented [that would be your Garand].”

      1. 8rnd enbloc clip FTW.

    3. The core problem, or so I am led to believe, is the availability of military firearms to the general public

      if you believe that, you have overdosed on the koolade.

      Per the Founders, at that day,

      the word “militia” simply meant ALL able bodied individuals capable of bearing arms in the perservation of “the security of a free state”, and suitably trained and equipped and organised to do so. (look about your own neighbourhood, nearly everyone over the age of 15 or so qualifies)

      and the word “arms” meant all weapons of military usefulness that can be moved about, deployed, and used, by an individual. It included edged weapons, smaller cannon, there WERE semi-autoatic rifles in that day that could rapidly (every 5 to 10 seconds) fire up to FORTY rounds of .69 calibre ball without reloading. There WERE long range “sniper” rifles that were deadly accurate at 250 to 300 yards (the REgulars would never fire beyond 100 yds, that distance being unachievable in their view).

      In light of that, WHY are the NON-military AR class of rifles being outlawed? They are NOT weapons of military grade, by any imaginary stretch. Hah, most states don’t even allow them to be used for hunting deer. Plinking, varmints, smaller game, rodent control……

      1. On the other hand, consider this: the single type of firearm that has been used to take more medium and large sized game in North America than anything else is the venerable .30/06 chambered 11903 Springfield.. the Main Battle Rifle of World War ONE…. a bolt action rifle with a five round FIXED magazine well. A friend of mine has taken doezns of deer, some of them trophy size, with a salvagd WW II era Swedish bolt action military rifle, similar to but smaller than the 1903 Spfld. Others have repuposed the 8mm German Mauser military rifle from WW II. Or the K31 and K 33 Swiss bolt action 7.5 mm. Even the Japanese 7.5 Arisaka, WW II main battle rifle. The US military’s M1911 .45 ACP handgun is likely one of the most carried handguns in the US, along with the German Luger, Browning High Power, Beretta 92, Colt and Smith revolvers, and many more I can’t recall just now, ALL are true military weapons, used unmodified on a regular basis in the US, though for hunting larger game many will buy an off the shelf “sporting” style stock.
        Clearly this is a baldfaced attempt to disarm the American public by starting at the single most popular rifle solid in America for the past few decades, as a starting point.

        1. consider this: the single type of firearm that has been used to take more medium and large sized game in North America than anything else is the venerable .30/06 chambered 11903 Springfield.

          How is that of ANY relevance to arms in common use in the 18th century?

      2. In light of that, WHY are the NON-military AR class of rifles being outlawed?

        Because your lengthy premise is … nonsense.

        and the word “arms” meant all weapons of military usefulness

        Pathetic.
        Bullshit,
        The militia claus.
        There was a long history of denying the carrying of unusual or dangerous weapons — or are you saying Scalia LIED in his ruling, which would deserve ridicule.

          1. Goobers be desperate … say Scalia LIED in his Heller ruling. … because his ruling makes monkeys out of them!.

            Authoritarian Right = Authoritarian Left

  13. . . . capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.”

    SO, fuck .17hm2?

    These people wouldn’t look so idiotic – and could do a better job – if they learned some shit about guns other that ‘they’re bad’. If you wanted to do this, then either set a caliber maximum (say, 4.5 mm – and groove to groove) or a maximum kinetic energy.

    Bam. Done. Still shite, but at least you have an objective, clear, bright line that isn’t going to leave you exposed when people point out that you’re giving a pass to this one type of ammunition while keeping illegal others that are in the same class, used for the same thing.

  14. “If passed, the initiative would give gunowners 120 days to rid themselves of their assault weapons, after which they would be guilty of a Class B Felony and subject to up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.”

    Tell me again how nobody wants to confiscate guns and how liberals care about over-incarceration.

  15. Clergymen? Let’s have a separation of Church and State. In God we trust! Clergymen. . . Not so much.

    1. these guys are NOT “clergymen”, they are political acitivists whose dayjob involves coddling and encouraging liberal socialist do-gooder types. I wonder if these clowns aren’t in violation of the “non-political” requirements for maintaining their Polital Action Council’s 501 c3 status. Seems I recall something about such federally recignised and registered groups can’t be promoting political issues. If staging a ballot issue and promoting it isn’t “political” nothing is.

  16. How has the Deerfield law not been challenged yet? Especially with the age restriction.

    Young people in this country are crying out.

    So? Children tend to be more emotional.

    This is the moment in time where we need to step alongside them as adults and do our part with them,

    Yes. This is the time to be an adult and lead the children into being educated and prepared to be an adult. Start by not emoting like them and teaching them to fear inanimate objects.

    If passed, the initiative would give gunowners 120 days to rid themselves of their assault weapons, after which they would be guilty of a Class B Felony and subject to up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines.

    There are multiple constitutional violations here.

    1. Where?
      Certainly not the first, second, fourth, or fifth.

      1. First? Yes. Religion and government ARE being mixed here… how many of the “churches” infolved in thispush are 503 c 3 organisations? If such political activity is not political, nothing is.

        Second? Yes. “arms” means weapons of military usefulness able to be deployed and used by an individual. One man (or small boy) can carry an AR style rifle for hours whilst walking about, and, at will, deploy that “arm” and fire it accurately all by his lonesome. To restrict possession or use of that class of “arm” is a clear violatioin of the Second.

        Fourth, yes. Such firearms would be included in the term “effects”. Cannot be seized without “due process”, and an unconstituional and vague ban on them is not “due process”. Further, since government have no justification to seize these, no lawful warrant CAN be issued.

        Fifth, cannot be deprived of property without due process.. see above section. Nor can be compelled to testify against one’s self.. the paperwork completed to purchase a firearm in Oregon DOES preciesly this… individual makes a record of his acquisistin/ownership of the item later deemed criminal to possess/own

        1. Tenth: power to infringe upon the right to arms is prohibited to the states by the fedConstitution, thus Oregon cannot bear this power.

          Fourteenth no state shall abridge any citizen a right or priviledge afforded by the Constitution. nor deny anyone within its jurisdiction equal protection under the law

          Article 1, Sec 9, prohibits ex post facto laws… the making illegal a thing that is now ilegal.

          Unconstitutional indeed.

          And I have not even addressed the Oregon State Constitition.

          1. thus Oregon cannot bear this power.

            Educate yourself on the Constitution.

            And I have not even addressed the Oregon State Constitition.

            You’d likely screw that up also.

            1. State v. Hirsch, No. SC S49370 (Or. 06/23/2005)

              [1] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON

              [2] Nos. SC S49370, S49371 (Consolidated for Argument and Opinion)

              [4] June 23, 2005

              [5] STATE OF OREGON, RESPONDENT ON REVIEW,
              v.
              MARK LEE HIRSCH, PETITIONER ON REVIEW.

              STATE OF OREGON, RESPONDENT ON REVIEW,
              v.
              LAWRENCE AARON FRIEND, PETITIONER ON REVIEW.

        2. Second? Yes. “arms” means weapons of military usefulness

          Educate yourself on the Constitution.

          1. Still showing off that extra chromosome, I see.

        3. Second? Yes. “arms” means weapons of military usefulness able to be deployed and used by an individual.

          Who’s full of shit, you or Scalia?

    2. Deerfield IS being challenged, from what I’ve read. The courts grind oh so slowly. But never forget.. justice delayed is justice denied.

      The “young people” in ths country are indeed on a whinge.. because theya re paid to do it, and maniupulated by moneyed control factions. Remembe,r the “oppositioin” voice IS being seriously quashed. SOros and Bloombirg, and their money, are behind this political push being masqueraded as a grassroots children’s quest for….. feeelz, or whatever it is they’re after. Remove the gravy train, and watch how long it lasts.

      One form or curse that God will, from time to time, visit upon a rebellious people, is to allow children to lead….. as is now happening.

      and yes, there ARE multiple constitional violations here.

  17. This is the moment in time where we need to step alongside them as adults and do our part with them

    Absolutely. We need to institute firearms training in all high schools. All teenagers should be able to correctly define the differences among fully and semi automatic weapons, between revolvers and semi-automatic pistols, have a working knowledge of basic ballistics and bullet energies, and be able to properly load and unload the common types of firearms. Additionally, those who wish should be trained in proper sighting and firing procedures, as well as the proper cleaning and storage of firearms. Reintroduce firearms competition at the high school and college level.
    Oh, yeah; and range safety training.

    Of course there is a possible down side to this proposal. People would be able to tell gun confiscation bullshit when spouted by raging liberals. A fair trade.

    1. Why? There are plenty of people who have zero interest in guns.

      1. Why? There are plenty of people who have zero interest in guns.

        Since when has public education been about entertaining the short-term (or even long-term) interests of high schoolers? There are still tons of kids learning cursive.

      2. Plenty of people have zero interest in math or writing.

        1. Knowledge of math and writing are necessary to function in a modern society.
          Why is knowledge of guns necessary?

          1. It’s necessary knowledge to keep a free society free.

            1. Because guns? I would think it’s more important to know about where our liberties come from rather than knowing specifics about guns.

              If it’s about self-defense, then why not include martial arts or other general self-defense skills?

              1. Are you suggesting that training in hand to hand combat is going to help an 80 year widow when a thug gangbanger breaks into her home looking for drug money to steal?

                1. Most highschool students aren’t 80 years old.

              2. Sorry CRI,
                Misread your post. Please mine from 7:12PM

              3. Because government agents won’t be coming to arrest you armed with gymkata.

            2. mic drop

          2. Knowledge of chemistry and physics isn’t necessary to function in modern society and yet we still force high school students to take a semester of each.

            1. The real purpose of science education in highschool is twofold: 1. college prep, and 2. learning how to think scientifically. As in, using empirical evidence to draw sound conclusions, that sort of thing.

          3. Because they are currently the best leveler of all.

      3. Because fuck you, that’s why.

      4. but EVERYONE should be concerned, proactively, about safety, right?

        Thus EVERYONE should have a basic understanding of firearms and basic safety, and the elementary facets of safe handling, clearing and “safing”, etc. Who knows when someone with zero interrest in guns” might not be called upon to “unload and clear” or secure a firearm no longer under the control of its owner, such as when found at the scene or a car crash, fire, riot, shooting (mcriminal or otherwise). Safety is EVERYONE”S businss…. and if one has no clue about basic gun handling he would then present a danger in such situatioins as above.

        Most kids learn about basic vehicle safety, even if they’ve no interest in driving one.

        1. Would you mandate that by law?

  18. The law in Deerfield was not reviewed by SCOTUS so now every anti gun state will try to pass similar laws. They do not care if a Marlin 60 is banned if all the other guns are banned as well. You have to remember these are people who think there is NO reason anyone should be allowed to have a gun, including hunting, so inadvertently banning target and hunting rifles is perfectly fine with them. However, if these morons in states like Oregon want to ban all guns that is their business. I would rather they focus on state laws if they wish to give up heir freedom than trying to pass national laws and take mine as well.

  19. Pastors shall not infringe
    Let’s be clear: any government that tries to infringe upon the sacred right of self-defense is on the wrong side of history, on the wrong side of the Constitution, and on the wrong side of the Bible. And so is any preacher who promotes the infringement of that right. And that includes any priest or church

    1. Pastor Chuck Baldwin

    2. Where do I begin? The Bible is irrelevant in a nation with Separation. You’re also mistaken on the Constitution.

      NO rights are absolute, when in conflict with another fundamental (unalienable) right. Per the definition of unalienable. Jefferson and the Founders were NOT illiterate!

      NO unalienable right may be denied or disparaged for any reason, ever. This seems to explode some brains, but — how would YOU resolve a conflict between two absolute rights?
      (hint: YOU cannot)

      1. so, pray tell what RIGHT is in direct conflict with MY right, God-given and unalienable, to keep and bear arms? O cannot think of one. What is the “other” absolute right you have in view?

        my right to freely associate? to life? A gun is simply an inanimate object, in spite of the bloviating of Bloomie and (well paid) “friends”. YOUR possession of a gun does not infronge upon MY right to life.. unless you unjustly break the laws against murder, for which YOU must be severly punished, NOT me.

        Don;t even try to raise the “right to safety” nonsense….. my RIGHT to be secure in my “persons, papers, houses, and effects” s specifically against GOVERNMENT intrusion of those things.

      2. The rights under the 1st and 2nd Amendments are absolute.

        Government cannot limit speech and cannot limit arms. For any reason [period]

        1. Umm, when you get to high school …. “There is no free speech right to yell fire in a crowded theater.” Schenck v United States (1919 SCOTUS)

          ALL fundamental rights are absolute. ALL. By the simple definition of unalienable. That includes Life and Liberty, the package called Pursuit of Happiness, and all the many others.

          Thus, they are precisely equal when they are competing or conflicting. When two absolute rights are in conflict, NEITHER can take precedence over the other. This explodes the brains of goobers, both right and left, as each seeks to impose their preferred right by force of law.

          Your assertion that only rights in A1 and A2 are absolute is …. bizarre. You seem to have invented it out of thin air. Individual rights and liberties don’t work that way.

  20. How history rhymes… Barely 79 years ago Positive Christians of no specific denomination banded together in support of the Kristallnacht laws passed to keep selfish people from owning guns in Germany…

  21. Sounds to me like Bloomie’s Idiots have got to those sorry excuses for “churches’ in Portland, one of the most “progressive” cities in the nation.

    The ex post facto nature of this gun ban makes it unconstitional on its face. Let us hope the GOOD people of Oregon rise up and squash this piece of rotten tripe.

  22. Yeah, the semi-automatic ban is crazy broad, but Reason MAY have missed the intent. Semiautomatic alone is sufficient, as it has been excluded from 2A protection since 1939 (US v Miller), and more recently confirmed by Scalia (Heller) All the other stuff — that you ridicule — creates EXEMPTIONS from all semiautomatics. Like the Marlin mentioned, which proves my point. Umm, it appears as an exemption under “large magazines” only because it holds more than 10. From what’s reported here, that seems to be the only place an exemption would be needed.

    And, can we stop the bullshit about AR-15s being “scary looking.” They’re semi-automatic.

    I’ll provide links to the proof, after I see which lies the guntards will use this time. The craziest one is that weapons “at the time” means NOW, which is kinda stooopid, since it means at ratification. (Hint: or else there’d be no purpose to using the words! duh.)

    1. the correct meaning, at the time that Constitution was written, and thus continuing to today, for the term “arms” is this: weapons of MILITARY USEFULNESS (no time limit indicated) able to be transported and used by a single individual. That would EXCLUDE things like tanks, torpedo boats, large bombers, but INLCLUDE all “small arms” such as… the AR class of rifles, amongst nearly every other type of weapon used by any footsolilder. NOWHERE in the Constitution is there any hint of limiting by time period anything to do with our right to arms. They ALL knew technology would progress, bring new things to common use.

      Are you aware that, during the time of our war for independence, there existed at least one model of rifle that was capable of firing up to forty rounds of .69 calibre ball, in rapid succession, semiautomiatic reloading between each round, a single round fired for each separate press of the trigger…. they were rather costly, thus not able to be put into the hands of every AMerican militiaman. But they existed, and the Framers WERE aware of them.

      So what was that you were mumblind about “semi-automatic” weapons?

      Further, the bit you “quoted” from Scalia (Heller) is taken in part… and badly out of context. As is your bit about Miller.

      1. Further, the bit you “quoted” from Scalia (Heller) is taken in part… and badly out of context. As is your bit about Miller

        Bullshit. Bellowing does not supercede SCOTUS rulings.

  23. the correct meaning, at the time that Constitution was written,

    I didn’t use “quotes”

    and thus continuing to today,

    Scalia was NOT an originalist? (Used “weapons” in his ruling

    NOWHERE in the Constitution is there any hint of limiting by time period anything to do with our right to arms.

    Tell Scalia. Also the VERY lengthy historical sources cited by Justice McReynolds’ 1939 ruling in US v Miller.

    They ALL knew technology would progress, bring new things to common use.

    Relevance? “in common use at the time” Scalia’s Heller actually labeled your apparent argument as “frivolous.”

    Page 8, Heller ruling, Scalia
    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, … and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search

    This was clarifying his ruling that 2A applies only to weapons in common use at the time, brought from home. There were no semi-automatics.

    See Part 2

    1. Part 2 OOPS, neglected to close my link to the proof.

      Are you aware that, during the time of our war for independence, there existed at least one model of rifle that was capable of firing up to forty rounds of .69 calibre ball, in rapid succession,

      Irrelevant, even if true (it was the 1800s) plus . “In common use at the time” and “brought from home.”

      But they existed, and the Framers WERE aware of them.

      “In common use at the time,” Scalia also cited, the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'” And maybe a dozen sources cited by Miller.

      So what was that you were mumblind about “semi-automatic” weapons?

      That was Scalia. You danced around the issue and never actually addressed anything relevant

      The bit you “quoted” from Scalia (Heller) is taken in part… and badly out of context. As is your bit about Miller.

      HUH? I cited neither..
      Anything else?

  24. SCOTUS rulings ? Second Amendment — cutting through the propaganda and misinformation.

    I never know how “they” will misrepresent the two relevant rulings. US v Miller and Scalia’s Heller. 2A protects ONLY those arms in common use at ratification, in modern form ? essentially (NOT literally) non-automatic pistols and hunting rifle.

    That statement will cause vicious attacks and snarling insults ? usually a combination of denials and word games.
    ONE fact demolishes ALL the bullshit. The NRA was POWERLESS against the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (what it’s called) ?. for ten long years (when it expired) FULL STOP,

    See Scalia next

    1. Part 2 of 3

      Justice Scalia’s Heller ruling
      We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.‘ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.'”
      …. the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty….. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

      Heller Page 1 Paragraph 2(f)
      … United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies
      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

      Now Miller

      1. 3 of 3

        US v Miller (1939)
        The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia — civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

        The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. “A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.” And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

        EXPLICITLY rejects military weapons … Continues for several hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits at ratification— which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban

        Plus, NO rights can be absolute, per the definition of unalienable, because such rights can be in conflict with each other. Jefferson and the Founders were NOT illiterate

        (let the rage begin)

        1. On second thought, SOME of the Miller reasoning (same link)

          By an Act passed April 4, 1786, the New York Legislature directed:
          . . . . That every Citizen so enrolled and notified shall, within three Months thereafter, provide himself, at his own Expense, with a good Musket or Firelock, a sufficient Bayonet and Belt, a Pouch with a Box therein to contain not less than Twenty-four Cartridges suited to the Bore of his Musket or Firelock, each Cartridge containing a proper Quantity of Powder and Ball, two spare Flints, a Blanket and Knapsack; .
          . .
          The General Assembly of Virginia, October, 1785, (12 Hening’s Statutes) declared,

          ? shall appear at his respective muster-field ? armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: . . . every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet and iron ramrod well fitted thereto, a cartridge box properly made, to contain and secure twenty cartridges fitted to his musket, a good knapsack and canteen, and moreover, each non-commissioned officer and private shall have at every muster one pound of good [p182] powder, and four pounds of lead, including twenty blind cartridges, and each serjeant shall have a pair of moulds fit to cast balls for their respective companies, to be purchased by the commanding officer out of the monies arising on delinquencies

          Clear enough?
          MUCH detail at the link.

          Any questions

          1. “Any questions”

            Yes, I have one. Does being a complete and utter dumbfuck come naturally or do you have to practice at it?

  25. Any limit or prohibition against arms is unconstitutional based on the protection of the 2nd Amendment.

    1. And the 2nd Amendment is just a statement regarding a natural right – so don’t give me any mealy-mouthed interpretation or talk about revoking it.

  26. “Young people in this country are crying out. This is the moment in time where we need to step alongside them as adults and do our part with them”

    They’re fucking children! What if they were crying out for candy, a bigger allowance or a later bedtime? Would we do that, too?

  27. On a positive note: multiple sherriff’s in Oregon have said for years that they won’t enforce a gun ban.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/in….._mess.html

    That ‘steal from the rich and give to the poor’ schtick sounds great when you are disadvantaged, but when most everyone is moderately wealthy or at least has a chance to be, they will come to take our stuff instead of the super-rich, because it is easier. Ironic that the sheriffs will be the good guys in the modern version of Robin Hood.

    1. Not that anyone will read past Hihn’s leaking colostomy bag dribblings all over this thread…

  28. Second Amendment ? propaganda and misinformation ? Chapter 2
    Do regulations fail?

    I’ll ignore the shrieking and hissy fits on SCOTUS rulings since 1939. Life is too grand to waste on word games with goobers,

    THINKING readers can judge for themselves the phrasing and context of those rulings. It’s not ME screaming at you.
    The Authoritarian Right shouts down differing speech more viciously than campus snowflakes ? but just as self-righteously. I haven’t looked, I’m sure this page proves me right.

    Inconvenient facts (fully documented) (ignore the screeching guntards)

    Intentional Homicide Rates (Latest available, UN) Per 100,000 population.
    5.3 United States
    3.0 Europe and Asia (each)
    1.7 Canada
    0.9 UK

    Have you ever considered that you MIGHT be manipulated? Even a little? How would you even know, deep in a tribal cave?

    FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 22 years
    Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … We had 8 in 6 weeks. Do the math.
    Mass Shootings Per year
    UK = 0.2 per year
    US = 69.3 per year = 3,100% higher mass shootings
    Are those YOUR values on “sanctity of life?”

    Cont’d

    1. Inconvenient questions:

      1) if teachers are thought to be armed, who will be shot first? (DOUBLE-DUH

      2) MIGHT we have so many ARMED bad guys … BECAUSE our citizenry is so highly armed? Might it work like the nuclear arms race did?

      3) In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. WHY? And HOW?

      4) What happens when two absolute rights are in conflict? Which prevails? Who decides? And why?

      NOT advocating gun grabs, just want HONEST debate ? the difference between libertarians and the bellowing blowhards of the Authoritarian Right.

      “shall not be infringed” They beat their chests and bellow ? nonsense, evasions and bullshit. ? PROVES how they’ve become witless tools of the political elites. The ISSUE is WHICH ARMS shall not be infringed. Why is this rocket science to these people?

      Left – Right = Zero
      Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years.
      Listen now to their death rattle, amidst the shrieking and bellowing.

      1. Cont’d

        Put up or shut up

        Why are American intentional gun homicides

        176% higher than Europe or Asia?
        311% higher than Canada?
        588% higher than the UK?
        (Unuted Nations Office on Drug and Crime)

        Hear them snarl. (smirk)

        1. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to disperse the military power of the country, the better to guarantee all the other freedoms we enjoy, including your freedom, Michael, to spout statistics.

          But, since you want a genuine debate, let me be the devil’s advocate here and ask you how many of the “gun homicides” you condemn were committed by “crazy niggers in Chicago” (or the equivalent elsewhere)? Does that make a law, to disarm black people only, acceptable to you? If not, then just where do you draw the line?

          Those calling for “gun control” don’t really want that — they don’t want to take all of the rifles and machine guns and tanks and combat aircraft and throw them in the Marianas Trench and go back to slings and arrows. What they want is to control MY gun — WITH A GUN! The difference between their proposal and the hypothetical above is that I’m not a “crazy nigger in Chicago” but just a MAN some national socialist wants to turn into a nigger. Which is as good a reason as any for me to stay armed to the teeth.

          1. Your confusion is best addressed at my link to “SCOTUS rulings since 1939”.

            Anything else?:

    1. Winners link to PROOF.

      Losers giggle like schoolgirls.

  29. And this thread is over. Knew it wouldn’t take long.

    1. Your bullshit has a short half-life.
      80-90% of forum readers never comment. THEY are my audience. Their many emails are cool.
      Thank you for playing losing.

      1. Eventually, perhaps I’ll discover the point behind Mr. Hihn’s claims.

        Is he asserting that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and bear arms? Or, only the arms he doesn’t like?

        ???

        I know of no court anywhere that would declare some “natural” absolute right to own anything — I’ve no right to own a refrigerator if what I’m going to do is drop it on your head. The question in Miller was whether one could own a machine gun or sawed-off shotgun for self-defense (and at the time of decision, Miller was dead, so arguably the case is no real precedent at all). But, in any event, any judge would have difficulty with the idea one needed combat aircraft to defend a dwelling against burglars, and if the NRA fails to make a cogent argument for a “right” to own high-capacity firearms in the wake of an “assault weapons” ban, or even properly raise the issue, then no judge will decide the question on his own, and certainly not in the NRA’s favor.

        The reason why citizens have a right to own military-style weapons was given by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist # 28. As far as I know, that argument never before has been before the courts, or even the idea that the right merely recognized by CA2 arises in the treason clause. Furthermore, since a court’s power to decide ANYTHING (and have it honored) rests on that foundation, it is difficult to see how judges with any integrity could deny the right without concurrently denying the authority of their decision.

        1. Eventually, perhaps I’ll discover the point behind Mr. Hihn’s claims.

          Your ignorance and irrelevancies have been addressed in Scotus rulings since 1939

          The question in Miller was whether one could own a machine gun or sawed-off shotgun for self-defense

          Yeah, I know. But I also know what the ruling says.

          and at the time of decision, Miller was dead, so arguably the case is no real precedent at

          You said that in public!

          hen no judge will decide the question on his own,

          We call it the Supreme Court. There are NINE justices and a majority ( 5) is sufficient to become the law of the land. How does it work in your country?

          it is difficult to see how judges with any integrity could deny the right

          Are you still confused that a single judge could do so? The rulings will clarify your confusion, since the right has never been denied — or even questioned (by SCOTUS)

          Thanks for sharing your feelings. Anything else?

        2. I know of no court anywhere that would declare some “natural” absolute right to own anything

          Oh.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.