What arms are "common"?

Amicus brief challenging California rifle ban

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

The Ninth Circuit case Rupp v. Becerra challenges the California legislature's ban on a wide of variety of rifles. Last week, I co-authored an amicus brief explaining: 1. Supreme Court precedents state that common arms cannot be banned. 2. Lower courts have used several methodologies to decide whether a type of arm is "common"; under any methodology, the arms targeted by California plainly are common. Therefore, prohibition is unconstitutional.

The challenged ban: Beginning in 1989, the California legislature began outlawing firearms by dubbing them "assault weapons." In California and elsewhere, the definition of "assault weapon" has never been fixed or coherent, but is instead a shorthand for the largest number of firearms that gun prohibition advocates believe they can target in a given legislative session. Indeed, just about the only firearms that not been labeled "assault weapons" are actual "assault rifles," as defined by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency; these are certain battlefield rifles capable of automatic fire, such as the German Sturmgewehr, the Soviet AK-47, or the U.S. M-16. See Kopel, Defining "Assault Weapons," The Regulatory Review (Univ. of Pennsylvania) (Nov. 14, 2018).

Under the latest definition from California, all centerfire semiautomatic rifles are prohibited if they:

  •  Are on a list that bans guns by make and model, OR
  •  Have a fixed (nondetachable) magazine over 10 rounds, OR
  •  Use detachable magazines, and have one of the following features: a pistol grip
    that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon; a forward pistol grip; a thumbhole stock; a folding or telescoping stock; or a "flash suppressor."

Every one of the forbidden features makes a rifle more accurate, and hence safer for all lawful purposes, including self-defense and hunting. Grips or thumbhole stocks improve the user's hold on the gun, so that it can be better controlled. Ajustable stocks allow users of different heights and arm lengths to adjust a rifle so that it fits them better, and hence is easier to control. A "flash suppressor" stabilizes the rifle's barrel, moderating the sine wave of energy that wobbles a barrel when gunpowder explodes. See Kopel, Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition, 20 Journal of Contemporary Law 381 (1994).

The above is agreed by all sides. "[T]hat the rifles are more accurate and easier to
control is precisely why California has chosen to ban them." Rupp v. Becerra, 401
F. Supp.3d 978, 993 (C.D. Ca. 2019).

Case background: After the California legislature expanded the rifle ban in 2016, a challenge was brought in Rupp v. Becerra. Attorneys for the plaintiffs are Michel & Associates, the leading California firm on firearms law. The firm's case page for Rupp contains all the filings. In July 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California upheld the new ban, on cross motions for summary judgement. The appeal is currently being briefed in the Ninth Circuit.

The amicus brief is on behalf of several civil rights organizations: Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, and Independence Institute (where I work). Joseph Greenlee was the lead author, assisted by me and by Prof. George Mocsary (U. Wyo. law school).

The following summarizes the brief, and also includes some additional commentary.

Core Supreme Court rules: Heller specifically addressed "what types of weapons" the right to keep and bear arms protects. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624 (2008) (emphasis in original). The Court held that the right protects arms that are "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." Id. at 625. In other words, "the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" Id. at 627 (quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 179 (1939)).

Thus, "the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether [the arms] are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today." Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027, 1032 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring) (emphasis in original).

Unlike "common" arms, "dangerous and unusual weapons" may be prohibited, according to Heller. Any arm that is "common" cannot be "unusual." Therefore, such an arm cannot be "dangerous and unusual."

Metrics for "common use." Under Heller, all bearable arms are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment, and the state bears the burden of proving otherwise–such as by proving the arms to be "dangerous and unusual." In Heller, the Court did not need to elaborate on "common use," since handguns are obviously very common. For other arms, lower courts have used a variety of quantitative measures for "common use." Under any standard, the rifles banned in California are common.

Total number.  Some courts have looked at the total number of a particular of arms, and found the relevant number of such arms to be over a million, or several million, thus constituting (or, sometimes, constituting arguendo), common use.

Jurisdictions. In evaluating bans on stun guns, and other arms, courts have looked the number of jurisdictions where the arms type is lawful.

Percentage of total. Some courts have considered what percentage of the total U.S. firearms stock, or of recent firearms sales, is comprised of a particular arm. Constituting two or three percent of total stock has been held to be "in common use."

The California arms are in common use. Based on the district court record, Americans own between 9 and 15 million of the types of rifles banned in California. They are commonly owned by hunters, constitute a large percentage of total gun sales, and an even larger percentage of rifle sales. The guns are legal under federal law and in 44 states. (And since California's ban is so broad, some of the guns outlawed in California are legal in the few states that do prohibit some rifles.)

California's counter-arguments against common use.

Only California counts. Attorney General Becerra argues that the banned rifles are not common in California. But Heller did not make the common use test jurisdiction-specific. When Heller was decided in 2008, handguns might not have been common in the District of Columbia, because the District had banned handguns since 1976. Prohibition cannot be its own justification, and prohibition does not exempt the prohibiting jurisdiction from the common use test.

Suitability for self-defense. The district court agreed with General Becerra's argument that the banned rifles are not well-suited for self-defense. This is empirically false, as detailed in the testimony of Amy Swearer before the U.S. House Judiciary Committee last year. It is also irrelevant. As Justice Stevens explained, "[t]he Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban not because of the utility of handguns for lawful self-defense, but rather because of their popularity for that purpose." McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. at 890 n.33 (Stevens J., dissenting) (emphasis in original).

Indeed, the Heller briefing was laden with pro/con arguments about whether handguns were effective for self-defense, and whether long guns were adequate (or superior) substitutes. The Heller Court  did not attempt to adjudicate the controversy; instead, the Court simply pointed to the choices made by the American people. As McDonald summarized Heller, "we found that this right applies to handguns because they are the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family." McDonald, 561 U.S. at 767–68 (quotations, citations, and brackets omitted).

It is for the people, not the state, to decide which arms are preferred for self-defense. The individual is in an advantaged position to determine which arm best suits his or her self-defense needs.

In the First Amendment context, "the general rule" is "that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented." Edenfield v. Fane, 507 U.S. 761, 767 (1993). Just as the People have the right to determine the value of the information they exchange, they have the right to determine the defensive value of the arms they keep and bear.

The limitation on the choice is that the arm cannot be "dangerous and unusual," which the California rifles are not.

Frequency of defensive use. Accordingly to General Becerra, the banned rifles are not frequently used for self-defense by being fired. Unfired firearms are, however, protected by the Second Amendment just as unread books are protected by the First Amendment. If Second Amendment protection depended on the number of actual defensive uses, low-crime communities would have fewer rights because their arms
would be needed for self-defense less often. 

The Heller briefing had lots pro/con empirical evidence about how often handguns are used for self-defense–sometimes by shooting a violent attacker, and much more often by simply being displayed and deterring the incipient attack. None of data were relevant to the Heller Court. The Court simply deferred to Americans' widespread choice to keep handguns for defense.

The district court brushed off the evidence that the banned rifles are commonly used for recreational and competitive target shooting. To the district court, only defensive use was constitutionally important. Yet Heller and McDonald stated that the Second Amendment right is for "lawful purposes," not just for self-defense. Heller approvingly quoted the Supreme Court of Tennessee stating that "the right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes." Id. at 614 (quoting Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 178 (1871)). Every federal circuit court of appeals to address the issue has found that the right protects other lawful purposes, not just self-defense. David B. Kopel & Joseph G.S. Greenlee, The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, 61 St. Louis U. L.J. 193, 204–07 (2017).

Dangerous and unusual. Nothing that is "in common use" can be "dangerous and unusual." According to the Heller Court, machine guns, such as the M-16 automatic rifle, can be prohibited, because they are dangerous and unusual. According to the district court in Rupp all the rifles banned in California are "essentially indistinguishable from M-16s." 

If you can't distinguish an M-16 from an old Winchester rifle with an aftermarket adjustable stock, you're not trying very hard.

Moreover, the U.S. Supreme has directly addressed guns that do look like the M-16 and which have some interchangeable parts. The automatic M-16 rifle (used by the US Army in Vietnam and thereafter) looks like the semiautomatic AR-15 rifle (introduced on the market in 1965). The Supreme Court found it easy to distinguish the two, based on their actual function. Specifically discussing the AR-15, the Court explained that such semiautomatic firearms, which fire "only one shot with each pull of the trigger," "traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions." By contrast, fully automatic firearms—M-16s and the like—have the "quasi-suspect character we attributed to owning hand grenades." Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603 n.1, 611–12 (1994).

Applying Heller to the California ban. Because handguns are common and thus constitutionally protected arms, "a complete prohibition of their use is invalid." Heller, 554 U.S. at 629. The Court applied no tiered scrutiny analysis, considered no social science evidence, analyzed no data or studies about the costs or benefits of the ban, and expressly rejected the intermediate scrutiny–like balancing test proposed by Justice Breyer's dissent. After all, the Supreme Court explained, "[w]e know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding 'interest-balancing' approach." Id. at 634.

Tiers of scrutiny (strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the variants thereof) might sometimes be appropriate for judicial review of non-prohibitory gun regulations. Under Heller, bans on common arms are categorically unconstitutional, without need for use of the means-ends balancing tests of strict or intermediate scrutiny.

The Supreme Court has addressed restrictions on specific types of arms four times, in Heller (handguns), McDonald (handguns), Caetano (electric stun guns), and Miller (short-barreled shotguns). The Court has never once indicated that interest-balancing—such as a heightened scrutiny analysis—is appropriate. For arms prohibitions, the Court has twice expressly rejected such an approach. Heller, 554 U.S. at 628–35; McDonald, 561 U.S. at 785. Under direct and recent Supreme Court precedent, the California rifle ban is unconstitutional. 

NEXT: Corporate Socialism? Bill Barr's Suggestion That the U.S. Should Buy Nokia or Ericsson To Counter China Is a Terrible Idea.

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. A “flash suppressor” stabilizes the rifle’s barrel, moderating the sine wave of energy that wobbles a barrel when gunpowder explodes.

    No. A flash supressor hides the flash from the shooter, helping prevent night-blindness when shooting in low-light conditions.

    Yes, it will modulate the barrel’s wobble when shooting – but its more likely to make the wobble worse than better. To control that wobble, barrels are cut to precise lengths or weights are attached. The chance that a flash suppressor will be the right weight in the right place to ensure the muzzle is in a consistent place when the bullet leaves the barrel is basically random and the same flash suppressor fitted to rifles of the same type but different barrel lengths will have different effects on that wobble.

    1. That’s bullshit, you dunce. Try again.

        1. Well, your claim that it “hides the flash from the shooter” is just wrong. Maybe there are a few designed to do that but I can’t think of any. Flash suppressors work by deflecting some of the escaping gases perpendicular to the barrel. That will generally put more of the flash in the shooter’s line of sight than shooting without one. Note that no pistols have flash suppressors yet pistol shooters’ night vision is not affected. Flash suppressors, on the other hand, can reduce the brightness of the flash toward the target – irrelevant to most civilian uses but rather important in night combat.

          But, despite the name, that’s a minor purpose for the flash suppressor. Mostly, they are deflecting the hot gases to stabilize the rifle but not by modulating wobble the way you describe. Instead, they work by carefully redirecting those gases to control recoil. Some types serve directly as a muzzle brake, deflecting some of the gases backwards to reduce the effective recoil. Suppressors of this style will have flat faces perpendicular to the barrel. You can see a whopping big example of this type on the end of any M109-series howitzer. More commonly, suppressors preferentially deflect more of the gases upwards to reduce barrel climb. (Barrel climb is an artifact of the bent design necessary to accommodate the fact that human eyes are higher than our shoulders.) Suppressors of this style will have either smaller slots or no slots on the bottom of the barrel. Of course, hybrid models are possible.

          1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_suppressor

            Its primary intent is to reduce the chances that the shooter will be blinded in low-light shooting conditions. Contrary to popular belief, it is only a minor secondary benefit if a flash suppressor reduces the intensity of the flash visible to the enemy.

            1. Wikipedia’s a great resource for some things. Their reliability suffers on any controversial or politically sensitive topic. Unfortunately, anything connected to guns has to be included in that category these days.

              1. That bit of info comes from the Army Field Manual, does that also suffer from unreliability on a politically sensitive topics?

                Also, the misinformation that this particular topic suffers from is exactly what you profess: That a flash suppressor hides the flash from the target (thereby making it difficult to locate a shooter and therefore having reason to be banned)

                Pistols don’t effect night vision as much because they have much lower powder charges than a rifle, so even with the shorter barrel the muzzle flash is significantly smaller. Its the same reason pistols don’t typically have muzzle brakes either, the lower recoil means the muzzle climb is easier to control even without a compensator

                1. That’s not what I remember my drill sergeant teaching us. But it was a lot of years ago so maybe I’m remembering it wrong.

                  1. I don’t remember my Drill Sergeants (I had three) discussing it one way or another. But it’s a lotta years ago for me as well; I might have forgotten it

                  2. At gunner’s mate A school, I was also taught that the flash suppressor holes not going down was to prevent dirt being kicked up in the shooters face when they were prone.

                2. ONLY ignorant goobers WHINE about inconvenient content in Wikileaks. GOOD FOR YOU, Kevin, for checking the ACTUAL source .. which is quite easy.

                3. Mr. Smith: Please cite the army manual. TM9-1005-319-10 calls it a compensator and says, “It keeps the muzzle down during automatic fire”. In FM 3-22.9 (2003) it has become a flash suppressor. In FM 3-22.9 (2007 and 2011) it is not mentioned. In the Wiki definition of a “flash suppressor” it says, “Its primary intent is to reduce the chances that the shooter will be blinded in low-light shooting conditions. Contrary to popular belief, it is only a minor secondary benefit if a flash suppressor reduces the intensity of the flash visible to the enemy.[1]”. I have muzzle brakes on every center fire rifle because I shoot a lot and I don’t want to develop a flinch. Some brake/flash suppressor designs blow a lot of dirt in my face. Competition shooters commonly thread pistol barrels for a compensator to hold the muzzle down, it allows the shooter to get back on target more quickly. Muzzle flash will be increased if you use a shorter barrel or a slow burning powder or shoot a lighter bullet that gets out of the muzzle sooner. Some powders are very “flashy” – especially in a short barrel or with some brakes/flash suppressors. This can be distracting for your guys or quite dangerous when shooting at night since it will attract incoming from those other people.

          2. Mostly, they are deflecting the hot gases to stabilize the rifle but not by modulating wobble the way you describe. Instead, they work by carefully redirecting those gases to control recoil.

            That’s a muzzle-brake. Not that a flash-suppressor couldn’t do double duty as one.

            1. Known as a ‘compensator’ when used solely to control muzzle climb.

              Also, you get muzzle climb because fire-arms are designed with the line-of-force from the barrel is above the line of the shooters grip (either just the hands or the hands and the shoulder in the case of long-arms), not because your eyes are above your shoulder.

              Flash suppressors don’t direct the flash straight up (and down). When they are designed with a dual function as a compensator they will blow off at a 45ish degree angle from vertical. When they’re not they’ll generally blow to the sides.

              Pistols often don’t have them – pistols also often don’t have the large muzzle flashes of a carbine rifle (like the M-4) or a machine gun. Or they’re integrated into a compensator. Otherwise there’s lot’s of stories about how you can’t see (or hear) anything after a shot or two in the dark from your self-defense pistol of choice. But that part is all anecdotal.

              1. Perhaps I should have been clearer. The line of force is above the line of the grip because our eyes are above our shoulders. We need to sight along the barrel but can’t comfortably take the force in that same line. Theoretically, you could design a weapon with a perfectly straight stock and just offset the sights by 6 or 8 inches – but that introduces new problems of parallax and stability.

                But as Brett points out below, these technical distinctions are moot as the regulations lump them all together as “flash suppressors” for the purposes of classifying the weapon as something scary to be prohibited.

                1. Except regulation don’t always lump them together, muzzle brakes are legal in CA

                  Ironically, where I used to live in Cook County, IL its muzzle brakes that are banned and flash suppressors that are legal. Kindof goes to show how all these bans are bullshit

                  1. Indeed. Under the 1994 AWB flash hiders were banned, but not pinned muzzle breaks.

                    What I’d like to hear is a defense of the bans on adjustable stocks, contrasted with having adjustable seats in cars.

                    1. What I’d like to hear is a defense of the bans on adjustable stocks, contrasted with having adjustable seats in cars.Open your Yellow Pages, Insane Asylums, pick any one or more.

                  2. its muzzle brakes that are banned and flash suppressors that are legal.

                    For real? Oh, that’s just nonsense.
                    You could make a (thin) argument that a true flash suppressor (that tries to hide the flash from the target) only makes sense if you are shooting at people, and therefore blah-blah-blah, but a muzzle brake keeps the weapon on target, and that’s all.

                2. Theoretically, you could design a weapon with a perfectly straight stock and just offset the sights by 6 or 8 inches – but that introduces new problems of parallax and stability.

                  AR-15.

                  That’s why the iron sights are up on that carrying handle, and you bend your head down to the straight stock.

                  (Parallax is … not a huge issue, really, especially since bullets fly in curves.

                  Stability doesn’t seem to be a problem, but it might be in, say, a full-auto .308 instead of semi .223.)

                3. The line of force is about the line of grip because otherwise you have to have the whole barrel there, including the trigger mechanism which would force you to push the action and barrel way far forward. Or some weird grip on either side of the firearm.

                  This remains even if you have eyes in your torso. Unless and until there’s a way to look down the barrel from behind while shooting.

            2. The gun controllers aren’t really interested in the fine distinctions between flash suppressors, sound suppressors, muzzle brakes, muzzle weights, compensators, and so forth. They’re all “muzzle excuses to ban.

              Trying to explain these things to them is dismissed as “gun-splaining”, and just identifies you as somebody whose opinion should be ignored because you have too much suspect knowledge.

      1. My only wish is to make a comment, if it appears that I am replying to a particular post, my apologies, I do not intend to criticize any one opinion about flash suppressors or pistol grips. In all fairness its self-defeating to argue these points. I will make a statement though. As an attorney I get the impression that many of these challenges to California law have failed to use the “big gun” pun intended. I as a competitive match shooter happen to be the owner of an MI Garand sold to me by the then DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship) a department of the U.S. Army for equipping citizen soldiers. It was a 2+ year process requiring fingerprints a background search and active competition in NRA sanctioned matches. In California the Roberti-Roos assault weapons ban makes me a felon. Are you effing kidding me!! Owning a rifle sold to me by the U.S. Army as a citizen soldier, the last line of defense and having passed a lengthy background investigation will send me to jail in California. Non sequitor, good thing I live in Florida.

    2. It’s not a matter of chance, though, is it? You can get adjustable ones and tune them in for the specific ammo you’re using.

  2. But Heller did not make the common use test jurisdiction-specific. When Heller was decided in 2008, handguns might not have been common in the District of Columbia, because the District had banned handguns since 1976. Prohibition cannot be its own justification, and prohibition does not exempt the prohibiting jurisdiction from the common use test.

    While I agree this *should* be the case, is there precedent backing it up?

    Because prohibition is used as justification in many areas – drugs are bad, because they’re illegal; drugs are illegal because they’re bad.

    1. Heller. He just cited Heller.

      And your drug analogy fails on many levels. But lets just go with there is no Constitutional amendment saying the right to use drugs shall not be infringed. If there was and there was a common use test, there is no doubt drugs are in common use even if they are currently illegal. Even in DC, pre-Heller, handguns were in common use as evidenced by DC’s gun homicide rate.

      1. I’m talking about the ‘prohibition can’t be used to justify prohibition’. Heller *doesn’t* say that. From what I’m reading, the idea that prohibition can’t justify prohibition is used to justify *Heller*.

        1. The Supreme Court doesn’t necessarily need to cite precedent if they are creating it, and prohibition not justifying prohibition is the sort of thing that should go without saying

          Also I think many of the drug prohibitions we currently have are unjustifiable and should be repealed, but that’s a different conversation

          1. They don’t. But they didn’t. And the author states it as if it were a long-established precedent.

      2. Also, there doesn’t need to be a constitutional amendment. You have all the rights, not just the ones enumerated.

        Again – I’m not talking about the common use test, I’m talking about people justifying drugs being illegal because they’re illegal. A lot of people like to conflate ‘illegal’ with ‘wrong’ and the fact that something is illegal is justification enough for it being illegal. Not as a legal argument, just a social one.

        1. Also, there doesn’t need to be a constitutional amendment. You have all the rights, not just the ones enumerated

          Only if SCOTUS says so … which is how it’s worked for the past 500 years or so,

          Or, how many unenumerated rights are there?
          How many can you name?

          If fundamental rights are innate, and/or God-given, then humans have have had all these rights, forever. How’d that work out?

      3. By contrast, fully automatic firearms—M-16s and the like—have the “quasi-suspect character we attributed to owning hand grenades.” Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 603 n.1, 611–12 (1994).

        Here’s this. M-16’s are ‘suspect’ because they’re not in common use. They’re not in common use because automatic rifles have been effectively made illegal – prohibition is being used to justify prohibition.

        1. Uncommon nationally as opposed to regionally. The Fourteenth Amendment (specifically the privileges and immunities clause and the equal protection clause) makes any jurisdictional justification for prohibition irrelevant.

        2. There are multiple versions of the M16 and not all are full auto capable. Several versions are limited to semi and 3-round burst only.

          1. The 3-round burst is not a semi-automatic as it fires more than one shot with each trigger pull.

            Although to be fair, one can own an automatic firearm like the M-16, M-4, Thompson, etc.; however it requires the federal government’s permission with either authorization for a specific person and weapon or a FFL with a Class 03 SOT. IOW they are not fully banned but highly regulated.

            1. The supply of legal fully auto guns is capped, because they had to have been owned prior to 1986 in order to have the tax stamp.
              Find that Gramps had a war prize in the attic taken off a dead Krout, sorry, you’re SOL and have to turn it in. Thus the ones with a tax stamp go for a ton of money. Like $30k for a Tommy Gun.

            2. “The 3-round burst is not a semi-automatic”

              Nothing in my post implies that 3-round burst is semi-automatic. The versions of the M16 I am referring to are select fire between semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull) and 3-round burst, with NO full auto option.

              The 3-round burst mode is neither semi-auto or full auto.

              1. You seem to be missing the point here. 3 round burst M16 variants are treated identically to full auto variants under the NFA – they are all treated as machine guns, requiring a tax stamp, background check by the ATF, etc. (because they shoot more than one round per trigger pull).

                As far as I know, there are no M16s or M4 Carbines that are not treated as machine guns under federal law. And that is because parts capable of turning a firearm into a machine gun (under the NFA) are considered machine guns, and that includes the all important lower receiver, that is legally distinctive between semiautomatic AR-15s and M16 machine guns. Which is to say that unless the lower receiver itself is modified to only allow semiautomatic fire, an M16 lower receiver is still considered a machine gun, regardless of the inner workings it houses.

                The interesting thing though is that there have been full auto AR-15s, that would, of course, still require appropriate registration under the NFA. This keeps people from legally modifying AR-15s to have full automatic capabilities. But also, some of the early full auto capable firearms of this architecture purchased by the military were marked as AR-15s, and not M16s.

          2. Semi-automatic bans have been constitutional for 80 years.
            Are you not aware that the NRA was TOTALLY helpless against the 1994 “assault weapons” ban?

            1. No they are not. They have been unconstitutional since 1791.

          3. A 3RB is just as “banned” as real-full-auto under the National Firearms Act, though.

            Under the law it makes exactly zero difference if it fires a thousand rounds from a hopper, or two. More than one per trigger pull makes it “a machinegun” under the law.

        3. “Common use” means AT RATIFICATION .,… since 1939.

          prohibition is being used to justify prohibition.

          Only to the hopelessly ignorant, and/or eagerly brainwashed.

    2. The Fourteenth Amendment (specifically the privileges and immunities clause and the equal protection clause) makes any jurisdictional justification irrelevant.

    3. “Drugs are bad, because they’re illegal, drugs are illegal, because they are bad”

      Usually this isn’t used for why drugs are made “illegal”. Many, many drugs are quite legal. Caffeine, Tylenol, etc. Many other drugs are legal with a prescription, which is typically pretty easy to get, so long as a need is shown.

      There is a very small subset of drugs that are illegal, due to their extraordinary danger/lethality, addictiveness, and their tendency to be abused. They are “bad” because of these reasons.

      1. Mainly due to having been favored by disfavored groups, or not being established enough in the culture yet to make banning them politically infeasible.

        1. With all the woketardation in politics today, the reason drugs remain illegal is due to the danger of use. Krokodil isn’t the sort of thing you want someone to have the freedom to try and if you do extend that freedom, even without a welfare state, the damage that individual will do to society is disproportionate compared to the damage done to the individual by telling them they can’t use toxic morphine or expect us to treat it the same as having a cup of coffee.

          1. Likewise, you can also make the argument that the damage done to society by prohibition of certain classes of drugs, such as alcohol, due to black market crime and mass incarceration have done more damage to society than the aggregate damage of countless individuals overusing said drug. That’s where we are today with cannabis, but I doubt we’d get further than that down the road. Maybe not though.

            1. “Likewise, you can also make the argument that the damage done to society by prohibition of certain classes of drugs, such as alcohol”

              That argument is equally applicable to EVERY recreational drug including cocaine.

              1. Yes, but lets put it this way, the margin between “acceptable/safe use” and “use that leads to life destroying behaviors that impact society” is much wider with alcohol than with cocaine.

                1. “the margin between “acceptable/safe use” and “use that leads to life destroying behaviors that impact society” is much wider with alcohol than with cocaine.”

                  Perhaps true, but the war on drugs itself still does orders of magnitude more harm.

                  And we need to argue over what you are including as “life destroying behaviors that impact society”

                  Legalized without undue regulation, most recreational drugs will be cheaper and more readily available. So at least some (and probably most) of the crime committed by addicts looking to fund their next fix should be laid on the war on drugs, not on the drugs.

            2. Likewise, you can also make the argument that the damage done to society by prohibition of certain classes of drugs, such as alcohol, due to black market crime and mass incarceration have done more damage to society than the aggregate damage of countless individuals overusing said drug.

              I can go further than that.

              Some people argue that certain drugs should be outlawed because their use has, in some cases, causes more damage than can be justified.

              Think of the “the authority to ban things” as a substance. Hasn’t that substance done enormous damage to society? Should we not bad it as unreasonably dangerous?

              1. I’m honestly not registering what you’re getting at.

          2. Anyone else describe the wacko right as wokeretarded???

            With all the woketardation in politics today, the reason drugs remain illegal is due to the danger of us

          3. “Society”?

            Yeah, no.

        2. Not really….

          What makes a drug “illegal” is typically a combination of high immediate lethality combined with addictive properties. Basically if it “hooks you, then kills you”…people don’t like that. Behavioral alterations play a role as well, depending on the behavior, but for the majority of the drugs the “hook you then kill you” is what does it in.

          Now, lethality has a number of parameters associated with it, but typically immediate or near immediate lethality (IE Heroin OD) is more important than long term lethality (IE, tobacco). Common Dose/Route of administration plays a major role in lethality as well. Nicotine is especially lethal, but it’s almost impossible to get enough in your system to kill you by smoking cigarettes. Cocaine, Heroin fall on the other side of that spectrum. Both are quite addictive, and it’s quite easy to OD on both.

          The big 3 (Marijuana, alcohol, tobacco/nicotine), fall somewhere in between, and really require a separate category to discuss.

          1. What makes a drug “illegal” is typically a combination of high immediate lethality combined with addictive properties.

            Not even close.

            Marijuana, for example, is not lethal nor addictive. Its not even habituating.

            What usually makes a drug illegal is some outgroup prefers it – take the sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack, for example.

            1. What makes a drug illegal is called …. a law.

      2. Similar to the way semi-automatic firearms are legal.

        Many other firearms/weapons (automatic firearms, grenades, etc.) are legal with the proper license (aka prescription).

        There are a very small subset of firearms/weapons that are illegal due to their extraordinary danger/lethality (nuclear, biological, chemical, etc.)

        1. Similar to the way semi-automatic firearms are legal.

          Even a total ban on semi-automatics has been constitutional, for 80 years now.

          1. No…it hasn’t.

            1. I’m starting to feel guilty about humiliating you so often, on this page.

              That’s WHY the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the 1994 “assault weapons” ban!! (smirk)

              1. 1. This is the first time you’ve responded to me on this post.

                2. The 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t ban all semi-automatics.

                3. There has never been a ban on all semi-automatics.

                1. BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

                  I’m starting to feel guilty about humiliating you so often, on this page.

                  This is the first time you’ve responded to me on this post.

                  ***STRIKE ONE

                  The 1994 assault weapons ban didn’t ban all semi-automatics.

                  ***STRIKE TWO — WAS THE BAN CONSTITUTIONAL? (smirk)

                  3. There has never been a ban on all semi-automatics.

                  *** STRIKE THREE … WHY WOULD A PARTIAL BAN BE CONSTITTUIONAL … BUT NOT A TOTAL BAN … FOR THE PAST 80 YEARS?????

                  ****You ALSO FUCKED all the brainwashed guntards who GLOAT that the ban didn’t work …. IT HAD TOO MANY LOOPHOLES.

                  On this page alone, you have now SELF-HUMILIATED SEVEN TIMES. On being either ignorant or totally irrational.

                  SO FAR.

                    1. I KICKED HIS ASS!!!

                    2. I’ve been kicking Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s ass since he showed up. That’s why he shrieks like a scaled bitch.

                  1. “WAS THE BAN CONSTITUTIONAL?”

                    No.

                    “WHY WOULD A PARTIAL BAN BE CONSTITTUIONAL … BUT NOT A TOTAL BAN … FOR THE PAST 80 YEARS?????”

                    They both are unconstitutional. Duh.

  3. California’s gun laws are just a naked power grab. The legislature and Becerra know they are unconstitutional, but they think the Constitution and Heller are wrong. And they are hoping that the Ninth Circuit like the Third Circuit will aid and abet their power grab.

    1. but they think the Constitution and Heller are wrong

      ANOTHER one totally clueless on Heller.

    2. Gee, that sounds exactly like Louisiana and June Medical Services v Russo. Worked up about that one too?

  4. “the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether [the arms] are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.”

    No, the pertinent Second Amendment is “is this an infringement?”.
    And yes, that law infringes, so it is unconstitutional.

    1. I think he’s writing this from the point of view of the amicus brief – which is adding in *other* supporting justifications for the lawsuit.

      I don’t know if the lawsuit is making the ‘this is an infringement’ argument but the brief is bringing other ammo to this fight.

    2. I don’t think you understand what “pertinent” means.

      1. He’s wrong either way!

    3. The problem with the Heller “in common use” test, is that it grandfathers in the effects of prior bans, (Select fire would probably be very common if it hadn’t been outlawed.) and preemptively authorizes bans on anything new, which by virtue of being new is incapable of being “common”.

      It’s roughly the same as the Court deciding that Jim Crow couldn’t be contrary to the 14th amendment because it had been in place for so long. A lot of these “longstanding” laws are only around because the Supreme court spent nearly 80 years after Miller flatly refusing every 2nd amendment case that came their way.

      1. But the Court couldn’t go back to first principles on the 2nd amendment, the way they could on the 14th, because the first principles of the 2nd amendment are antithetical to how our political class think today, the conclusions you draw analyzing the 2nd amendment from first principles, while easily defended on originalist grounds, (The founders weren’t shy about explaining it!) are politically inadmissible.

        Only Thomas, maybe, has enough of a “though the Heavens should fall” attitude to go there. “Every terrible implement of the soldier” is off the table for political reasons.

        This handicaps 2nd amendment jurisprudence. The results of a rigorous, history and principles based analysis being ruled out for political reasons, the Court unavoidably engages in BS sophistry of one sort or another. On one side, sophistry aimed at rendering the amendment a nullity. On the other, sophistry aimed at reconstructing it into a politically acceptable, neutered version, unanchored in the amendment’s actual reasoning and history.

        2nd amendment jurisprudence will continue to be a mess for a long, long time, thanks to this.

        1. Alito once wrote a dissent in a lower court ruling that the 1986 machine gun ban wasn’t properly hitched to the interstate commerce clause. I suspect he would go back to originator principals on the 2A.

        2. “Every terrible implement of the soldier”

          I’m more textualist than originalist.

          Personally considering the language “keep and bear” with bear in context being equivalent to carry, I would personally accept bans on vehicle mounted and/or crew served weapons.

          1. That’s a fair distinction that Scalia himself noted in interviews when people try the “how about tanks and nukes” like of reasoning. I suppose RPGs, MANPADS and grenades are kept and born by a single soldier, but those are really ordinance not arms.

            1. Right, the ordinance vs arms distinction gets you away from nukes, until the US army starts issuing backpack nukes to each grunt who graduates from basic training.

              Not that private ownership of ordinance was restricted at the time, either. Especially ships’ guns: It was understood that private sailing ships needed to be armed in an age of piracy, privateers were just unusually well armed private ships.

              But that was more a matter for the 9th amendment, than the 2nd.

          2. “At the time” of that amendment passing, private sailing ships were allowed to be armed with crew-served weapons.
            Why would you prevent a militia from defending our territory with a mortar or an anti-tank missile?
            “Arms” means arms, without distinction. You want gun control, do it right and amend the constitution.

            1. Sure, the Founders were fine with private militias and letters of marque for private ships. But those aren’t in the text of the Amendment and only provide a clue that they were fine with military implements that could be kept and borne by individuals. If the 2A protects an individual right, it can’t protect a communal right to operate a crew served weapon like a cannon.

              What did “arms” mean in 1791?

              1. “What did “arms” mean in 1791?”

                It was (and still is in the context of this discussion) a synonym of “weapons”.

                As I said in my comment above, the limiting language is “keep and bear” with bear being the important part. You can’t throw a cannon over you shoulder and walk around with it.

      2. I’d add that, even by the Heller test, suppressors should be constitutionally protected, because, while they’re not common due to the NFA, neither are they “dangerous”. Indeed, they’re the opposite of dangerous, they’re safety equipment.

      3. The problem with the Heller “in common use” test, is that it grandfathers in the effects of prior bans

        THAT WAS MILLER, SCALIA HAD TO CLARIFY WHICH WEAPONS ARE PROTECTED IN THE (new) INDIVIDUAL RIGHT,

        HE CITED MILLER’S “common use at the time” (ratification), and “brought from home for militia duty” … plus a lengthy defense, including RIDICULE of common bullshit by guntards. Devastating

        1. The right to keep and bear arms, including commonly available firearms, cannot be a new right, since it is an unalienable right, preexisiting the Constitution.

          1. WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
            So …. you’re another one, totally ignorant of the elementary facts here, bellowing at the sky.

            It was NEVER an INDIVIDUAL right, under the Constitution, until Heller … and NEVER an absolute right, either way, even now … as documented. in detail. by Scalia

            Anything else?

          2. Sorry, I missed THIS blunder:

            including commonly available firearms

            Weapons in common use AT RATIFICATION … AND brought from home for militia duty … the Supreme Law of the Land, for “only” 80 years now!

            The SOLE purpose of 2A is stated in the “militia clause” … to defend the security of a free state. READ IT.

            While you were off, shaking your fists at the sky and bellowing, we’ve long had a PROFESSIONAL MILITARY to perform that function. Which makes 2A totally moot, just awaiting the right challenge. Scalia’s Heller is the best interpretation possible. With a professional military.

            If you simply cannot accept American values, including our Constitution and the Rule of Law, you do retain the right to … emigrate. Your choice, of course.

            1. TheLibertyTruthTeller: I think you are wrong. I think that Scalia got it right. The right to keep and bear arms is individual and that is what the authors of the Constitution meant when they wrote it and what the citizens ratified. For what the authors were thinking see Federalist Papers 29 about the militia and 46 about the army and the exhaustive examination by Scalia in Heller. In this context our professional military is too big. And posse comitatus provides that the sheriff may conscript citizens but not the army. And I have just as much right to my opinion as you do to yours. Apparently we have a different definition of “American values” and possibly a different definition of the 1st Amendment too.

              1. TheLibertyTruthTeller: I think you are wrong. I think that Scalia got it right.

                I never mentioned the “individual right” part of Heller. I quoted Scalia, and you comment on the wrong part of the ruling.

                see Federalist Papers 29 about the militia and 46 about the army and the exhaustive examination by Scalia in Heller.

                You seem to still be in the part I never mentioned.

                In this context

                You blew MY context, totally, never touched it

                our professional military is too big.

                Too big to defend “the security of a free State?”
                How much SMALLER do you think our professional military should be, to defend America?

                You need to learn that the purpose of 2A was to assure there would be no standing army, If you don’t know US v Miller, you cannot possibly understand all of Heller — including the part I described which you ignored

                And posse comitatus provides that the sheriff may conscript citizens but not the army.

                Not for the defense of America!
                And you managed to get posse comitatus totally backwards.
                It’s deals with the FEDERAL government. Sheriffs had long been “provided” the power to conscript citizens.
                Why do YOU say sheriffs could have conscripted Army soldiers, until posse comitatus?
                Can sheriffs conscript members of the Coast Guard, Army or Air Force National Guard, which are not covered by posse comitatus?

                And I have just as much right to my opinion as you do to yours.

                Nobody said otherwise,
                So…. why do you SHIT on MY opinion, with so MASSIVE a lie about what I said? Which was this.

                If you simply cannot accept American values, including our Constitution and the Rule of Law, you do retain the right to … emigrate. Your choice, of course.

                Apparently we have a different definition of “American values” and possibly a different definition of the 1st Amendment too.

                MEOW
                YOU cannot accept “our Constitution and the Rule of Law”

                My turn.
                WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU BABBLING ABOUT?
                You LIED about my “values” comment, NEVER addressed ANYTHING else I said — I NEVER mentioned the “2A as an individual right” part of Heller. You also screwed up posse comitatus

                Plus, some freaky delusion that I attacked freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition.

                Oh yeah, you obviously never read Heller for yourself, and appear to have pasted in from an NRA pamphlet or something. Posse Comitatus deals solely with the FEDERAL government. Local

                I’m a libertarian. I real one. Neither right nor left. And I’ve quoted Heller, the parts you ignored, a few times on this very page.

                Anything else?

                1. P.S. I also never commented on the purpose of the militia, at ratification.

    4. Educate yourself

      Heller Ruling Page One
      1(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 to those used by the militia,

      2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: …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.

      Weapons used by the militia, at ratification. Full stop

  5. Kopel gets CRAZIER by the day. And he BEGAN as the King of Guntards!

    BOTH core rulings, Miller and Heller say 2A protects the modern equivalent of weapons in common use AT THE TIME … (ratification) …. brought from home for militia service.

    Here are the exact words from both rulings, for manipulated puppets of the ruling elites, who … like Bernie Bros on inequality … REFUSE to accept even undeniable facts, on behalf of their “(un)Holy Cause.”

    Ready?

    Heller Ruling Page One, 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

    Page 8: “… 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…

    The psychos even LIE about what “at the time” means!

    Cont’d

    1. Part two

      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 …

      “AT THE TIME” means at ratification … THE TIME FRAME DID NOT CHANGE IN MID-SENTENCE. duh.

      Continues for a few hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits — which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban (what it’s called) for TEN LONG YEARS..

      Guntards – Progtards = Zero
      Both lie, shamelessly, to advance a tribal, anti-liberty agenda by force of law … aka authoritarian
      ———

      I know, all too well, the entire range of lies and lame excuses, endlessly repeated by brainwashed tools of the political elites (suckers) … and can crush every one of them … by page number in Heller (for those with the moral integrity to check the actual text,)

      1. Part 3:
        3. The handgun ban and trigger lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the 2nd Amendment.

        That’s because Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t read past page 1.

        1. UMM, HANDGUNS WERE IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION!

          That’s because Dumbfuck Hihnsano doesn’t read past page 1.I QUOTED PAGE 8, DUMBFUCK
          And page 55 elsewhere on the page

          And YOUR cite from Heller page 2 missed THIS

          2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues…

          Miller’s holding (1939) that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

          Pages 54-56 include a VERY lengthy list of gun prohibitions at and around ratification.
          Scalia was am originalist; NOBODY here, who opposes any and all regulations is even close.

          1. TheLibertyTruthTeller
            February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
            That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

            A handgun is not a musket, you moron.

            1. NOW he’s pissed because his FIRST assault was PROVEN BULLSHIT.

              SO, NOW …. JUST AS CRAZY!

              Were handguns brought for militia duty? 🙂

              In the 18th century, would YOU have brought a HANDGUN for combat against a foreign threat? (smirk)

              Do you have ANY clue on the range of a pistol vs a musket?
              Or their ability to aim at a far target???

              1. Lots of officers and common soldiers carried pistols. They were (and are) an effective sidearm if the enemy got close and you didn’t have time to reload your long gun.

                It wasn’t either pistol or long gun, but both (to those who could afford both)

                1. It wasn’t either pistol or long gun, but both (to those who could afford both)

                  Shoot yourself in the foot much?

              2. Yes, pistols. Those who had them carried pistols and rifles and muskets. Just like most modern troops carry pistols and rifles and for the same reason. Do you know the range of a musket? In the Napoleanic wars (early 1800s), companies of soldiers would stand in formation 75 yards apart and fire at each other. Relatively few people were shot. They stood there, fired, and reloaded. Muskets are smoothbore – like Joe Bidens shotgun – shooting round balls. In the 1790s rifles were not common. They were slower to reload than a musket more accurate.

                1. Very few rifles were used until the 1860s, except by sharpshooters because, although more accurate they were much slower loading than muskets..

                  Do you know the range of a musket?

                  Don’t need to.
                  Do you know the range of a flintlock pistol?

                  In the Napoleanic wars (early 1800s), companies of soldiers would stand in formation 75 yards apart and fire at each other. Relatively few people were shot. They stood there, fired, and reloaded.

                  LOL
                  If only one person had been shot, you screwed up the range. And why would they continue doing it, at the risk of being shot. Indeed, why would they do it at all?

                  In the 1790s rifles were not common.

                  Make up your mind.

            2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad that he got caught lying in his claim that only muskets are allowed by the 2nd Amendment.

              1. NOW THE PSYCHO LIES ABOUT HIS OWN QUOTE OF ME!!

                Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad that he got caught lying in his claim that only muskets are allowed by the 2nd Amendment.

                See his boldface (smirk)

                TheLibertyTruthTeller
                February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                “MODERN VERSIONS OF”

                PSYCHOPATHIC LIAR

              2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano admits that he thinks a “modern” single-shot musket is the only firearm protected by the 2nd Amendment.

                1. THE COCKSUCKER LIES AGAIN!!!
                  ****CHECK THE THREAD!

                  1) FIRST HE DENIES THAT I SAID “MODERN VERSION” … EVEN THOUGH HE QUOTED ME SAYING IT.

                  2) NOW CLAIMS I SAID ONLY “MODERN” …. EVEN THOUGH HE QUOTED ME SAYING ‘MODERN VERSION!!”
                  ***TOTALLY LACKING IN CONSCIENCE … LIKE TRUMP!!!

                  3) OR .. having his original fuckup jammed up his ass …. THE CRAZY GUNTARD SAYS “A MODERN VERSION OF A SINGLE-SHOT MUSKET” IS ….. THE ORIGINAL VERSION OF A MUSKET ……
                  ***** SINGLE SHOT RIFLES DO NOT EXIST, IN HIS FEVERED BRAIN!!!

                  ******BULLETS DO NOT EXIST IN HIS CRAZED STATE.

                  ******DOES HE KNOW WHAT A RIFLED BARREL IS???
                  hahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

                  Even funnier … he’s been stalking me for years … with hundreds of unprovoked assaults, all just as crazy

                  DAMN. Now the crazed winger will punish me AGAIN.
                  But I can kick his pathetic ass again!

                  PITY THE FOOL.
                  (this is where he often launches an entirely different assault … PROVING his raging hatred is TOTALLY out of control.) One Sick Fuck.

                  1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano continues lying that he said only single-shot muskets were protected by the 2nd Amendment, even though I quoted him directly.

                    1. You were PROVEN full of shit here.
                      https://reason.com/2020/02/12/what-arms-are-common/?replytocom=8129177#respond

                      And directly below that.

                    2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano links to his own denial that he said the 2nd Amendment only covers single shot muskets.

                    3. (sneer) CHECK THE THREAD
                      My denial includes PROOF you lied, psycho. (snort)

                      One more time

                      TheLibertyTruthTeller
                      February.12.2020 at 7:48 am
                      That’s all irrelevant. since the protected weapons are modern versions of weapons in common use at ratification, brought from home for militia duty … which would be muskets

                      The modern version of a single-shot musket.

                      PSYCHOPATHIC LIAR — LIES ABOUT A THREAD IN PLAIN SIGHT,

                    4. Dumbfuck Hihnsano admits he said that only single-shot muskets are protected by the 2nd Amendment.

                    5. Even in boldface … the crazed psycho lies about what I said (sneer)

    2. I’ll point out the obvious. You quote not just from the ruling but from the syllabus of the ruling which is, by necessity, very abbreviated. Then you assert that you’ve found an inconsistency within Heller because the syllabus is not exhaustive.

      If you had read the first two sentences of the syllabus (after the word “Note”) you might have noticed this admonition [emphasis added]:

      The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader

      And you even have the nerve to try and mislead the reader by implying that you are quoting from “core rulings”.

      Perhaps you have a quibble with the Reporter of Decisions? You might want to send them snail-mail complaining that their syllabus in this case was not idiot proof, as you have aptly proved.

      Reporter of Decisions Supreme Court of the United States
      One First Street, NE
      Washington, DC 20543

      (I’d offer to send you stamps if you can’t afford them but, frankly, I haven’t used one in years so have no idea where/if I have any.)

      Anyway, to the extent, if any, that Heller is inconsistent with Miller (since it’s rather hard to figure out what you’re claiming), Heller rules.

      1. …complaining that their syllabus in this case was not idiot proof, as you have aptly proved.

        LOL, awesome!

      2. Hihn is yet more proof that if you try to make something idiot-proof then God will just make a better idiot.

        1. I’m copying that quote for later usage.

        2. Is there nothing that can stop the “progress” of “Hihnsanity”?
          😉

          1. Didn’t he get so bad, that even the free speech Reason banned him? One person on a non-VC thread said as much, but then his sock puppets keep popping up.

            1. (sneer) All 13 bans were REMOVED … under threat of a lawsuit
              And you ADMIT Reason.com is a fucking moral hypocrite … who would have LOST … fraudulent advertising.

              even the free speech Reason

              For the website. “free minds and free speech” has been a lie for over 10 years, goober. No doubt influenced by the authoritarian statist thug, Ron Paul.

              SOMEBODY HAS TO DEFEND LIBERTARIAN VALUES HERE I’m just the most frequent.

              1. Well, most frequently insane, anyway. Though, I guess if you’re insane all the time, you can’t really say the “frequency” is high, can you?

                1. I am normally not one to say this, but Hiln is not mentally stable and needs professional help. Like not the Scientology kind either.

                  Does E. Volokh have the ability mute this idiot? I mean, even Rev’s racism is more tolerable.

                  1. I’ve never been quite sure whether the Rev was a really obnoxious left-winger, or a seriously devoted to consistency parody of such.

                    But Hihn is just nuts.

                    1. PLEASE KEEP GIGGLING AND SNEARING LIKE 12-YEAR-OLDS

                      WHILE I CONTINUE POSTING ACTUAL SCOTUS RULINGS … WITH LINKS AND PAGE NUMBERS … AND ALL YOU HAVE IS …. NOTHING … NOTHING AT ALL … BUT CHILDISH INSULTS.

                      *****PLEASE KEEP SHOWING THE STARK DIFFERENCES BETWEEN A THINKING LIBERTARIAN AND BRAINWASHED PUPPETS OF THE RULING ELITE.

                      (sneer)

      3. Guntard does not know what a syllabus is. Yes, it’s not the rulking, but it IS a summary … so guntard ass-umes the summary is a LIE ,… which has gone UNCORRECTED all these years

        ****PLUS IS HE
        a) Illiterate?
        b) a fucking liar on what I said?

        And you even have the nerve to try and mislead the reader by implying that you are quoting from “core rulings”.

        HELLER AND MILLER ARE THE CORE RULINGS.
        READ IT AGAIN

        BOTH core rulings, Miller and Heller say 2A protects the modern equivalent of weapons in common use AT THE TIME … (ratification) …. brought from home for militia service.

        A BIGGER FUCKUP NEXT

        Anyway, to the extent, if any, that Heller is inconsistent with Miller (since it’s rather hard to figure out what you’re claiming), Heller rules.ONE MORE TIME, CHIMP CHUMP

        BOTH core rulings, Miller and Heller say 2A protects the modern equivalent of weapons in common use AT THE TIME … (ratification) …. brought from home for militia service.

        ARE YOU REALLY TOO FUCKING STUPID TO KNOW THAT MEANS THEY SAY THE SAME THING???

        AND … GOMER … YOU FAIL … TOTALLY … TO EVEN ARGUE THAT HELLER DOES NOT STATE — AND DEFEND, IN DETAIL, THAT 2a DEFENDS **ONLY** THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF WEAPONS IN COMMON USE ATE RATIUFICATION, BROUGHT FROM HOME FOR MILITIA SERVICE.

        Complaining that their syllabus in this case was not idiot proof,

        ****YOU ARE THE ONE WHO SAYS IT’S A

        1. Corrected

          EVEN WACKIER

          ME:
          BOTH core rulings, Miller and Heller say 2A protects the modern equivalent of weapons in common use AT THE TIME … (ratification) …. brought from home for militia service.

          The aggressor
          Anyway, to the extent, if any, that Heller is inconsistent with Miller

          *** I SAID THEY WERE THE SAME!!

          (since it’s rather hard to figure out what you’re claiming),

          For YOU (sneer)

          ***AND … YOU DON’Y EVEN TRY TO DEFEND YOUR APPARENT BELIEF THAT HELLER DOES *NOT* STATE — AND DEFEND, IN DETAIL …. THAT 2a PROTECTS **ONLY** THE MODERN EQUIVALENT OF WEAPONS IN COMMON USE AT RATIFICATION, BROUGHT FROM HOME FOR MILITIA SERVICE.

          Lotsa childish snark … NO content.

          Complaining that their syllabus in this case was not idiot proof,

          YOU said the syllabus was wrong!!
          🙂 🙂 🙂

      4. I missed THIS fuckup by the crazed BadLib

        Then you assert that you’ve found an inconsistency within Heller

        *** EVEN CRAZIER THAN THE REST OF HIS OR HER RANT.

        1. Wow, Hiln. Calm down. Enough with the all bold and caps and insults. I can hear your heart racing through the internet tubes, and practically see the red face and sweaty palms because we have the temerity to disagree with you.

          Perhaps it’s best if you just push the keyboard tray in and walk away. For you health. After all, if you’ve not got your health, you don’t have anything, ya know?

          1. How DARE you DICK-TATE how a VICTIM is permitted to DEFEND HIMSELF from aggression, THUG???

            RIDICULE IS NOT WHAT YOU SAY IT IS.
            (THIS IS RIDICULE, TOO, CHUMP)

            1. Did you take your meds today Hiln? It’s worse than usual for you today.

              1. He’s prolapsing from spouting so much shit.

                1. I used to enjoy gun topic threads on the VC too.

              2. Did you take your meds today Hiln?

                They’re called smart pills. That’s why I kicked your ass on ISSUES … 6 times on this page … with actual SCOTUS rulings, links and page numbers.

                And you’re now left with childish insults. (smirk)

                1. If you’re so smart, you wouldn’t have declared bankruptcy. (smirk)

  6. I might be wrong, but this is only half the battle. The courts have not defined—vaguely or precisely—what constitutes an infringement. Is a tax an infringement? Is paperwork an infringement? Is a handgun roster an infringement?

    1. Imagine the following

      A journalism tax

      Having to file paperwork with the government to get a license to publish

      A news organization being required to register their reporters before allowing them to write, or maybe a reporter having to register every article before publishing.

      The spread of dangerous fake news is a threat to democracy, and these common sense regulations will ensure that only responsible reporters are allowed to publish.

      Sound like infringements to me

      1. Unlicensed journalists are misusing the First Amendment to spread misinformation about the Second Amendment, other parts of the Constitution and public policy and criminal law. I propose a simple but effective solution.

        1) Repeal the First Amendment. It was written in the days when people could only write with quill pens. It is out of date and makes it hard to deal with modern rapid-fire propaganda weapons like the Internet and television.

        2) License all persons who write for the public. The licensing process should take several months, involves 2 – 3 visits to the local police station, a background check, a psychological exam, and a thorough written exam on every topic of public discussion. This will ensure that only qualified persons can become journalists.

        3) Institute a waiting period before the publication of any article, op-ed or news story. This will ensure that the relevant facts can be checked, and if they are not exactly correct in every minor detail, the article will be rejected by the police. While some article may take only a few days to be verified, some articles may take some several months. This is a good thing, and ensures that only the Truth is presented to the public.

        4) Reject articles from out-of-state writers. There is no reason that a resident of New Jersey should be able to write an article in the New York Post. He can write in a New Jersey newspaper if he wants to.

        (Those readers who actually understand firearms law will have understood by now that I am making a direct analogy between the First and Second Amendments, and New York City’s existing gun control laws. Most of the above are true if you want to own, buy or carry a handgun in New York City).

        1. You trying out to replace the OBL parody account? 🙂

          Loved #4, made me laugh.

          1. Funny thing, #4 made me cry.

        2. Slight adjustment to #1, clearly the founders understood you could write with something other than a quill and paper, as they specifically protected the right to use a printing press. However they were only referring to the printing presses of the time that could only print a few pages per minute and took a long time to reload for the next page. They could not have imagined modern automatic high capacity presses capable of shooting out thousands of pages per minute

            1. Yet you ignorantly continue to quote the syllabus as the ‘ruling.’

              You also have a strange fixation with jamming things up asses.

              I’m just going to flag every comment of yours that I see from now until you’re banned again. Bye now, sweetie.

              1. Yet you ignorantly continue to quote the syllabus as the ‘ruling.’

                IT’S IN THE RULING DOCUMENT …. AS A SUMMARY

                *****WHY DO SO MANY OF YOU ALT-RIGHT GOMERS SAY THE SUMMARY IS A LIE??? (snort)

                You also have a strange fixation with jamming things up asses.

                Like I just did to you? (smirk)

                Are you among those so TOTALLY IGNORANT of what the phrase means??????????

                I’m just going to flag every comment of yours that I see from now until you’re banned again.

                THE AUTHORITARIAN RIGHT … BURNING BOOKS AND CENSORING OPPOSING VIEWS FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

                *** SINCE LONG BEFORE THE BERKELEY SNOWFLAKES! 🙂

                1. Your views aren’t a problem. They’re uninformed and laughably wrong.

                  It’s the attitude that deserves censorship. Thanks for your understanding.

        3. KevinP is a … JOURNALIST! Who knew?

          Unlicensed journalists are misusing the First Amendment to spread misinformation about the Second Amendment

          HEY FACSIST. IT’S NOT POSSIBLE TO MISUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

          (The CENTRAL-STATE fascist ALSO shits on … FEDERALISM.)

    2. That’s NOT the court’s function.
      They only rule on matters before them.
      That means they rule if a challenged restriction is an infringement.

      And, as Scalia confirmed in Heller, DOZENS of restrictions in effect at ratification are (obviously) not infringements … including historical bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons” (Scalia’s own words)

      1. Well, yes, but “dangerous” in the sense of dangerous to the user and bystanders, not dangerous to the person shot with them. Since the whole point of firearms is to be dangerous in THAT sense.

        The 2nd amendment doesn’t stand in the way of genuine product safety regulation, like requiring that guns not blow up in your hand.

        1. Well, yes

          So why did you “Babylon?”

          For ANOTHER bullshit diversion!

          The 2nd amendment doesn’t stand in the way of genuine product safety regulation, like requiring that guns not blow up in your hand.

          Nor has it stood in the way of bans on semi-automatic rifles, since 1939 … nor bans on “unusual and dangerous and unusual weapons,” since … forever (per Heller) … nor three pages of bans (54-56) in effect at ratification … nor various concealed carry regulations (also Heller)

          1. Well, for that matter the 14th amendment didn’t stand in the way of Jim Crow for a very long time. The Constitution and its amendments aren’t self-executing, after all; If the Supreme court isn’t in a mood to enforce the 2nd amendment, it doesn’t do anybody any good.

            1. Well, for that matter

              DIVERSION. Not even close to THIS matter,

              the 14th amendment didn’t stand in the way of Jim Crow for a very long time.

              Because you racists still had power.

              The Constitution and its amendments aren’t self-executing,

              Diversion. To irrelevance.

              ONE MORE TIME:

              Well, yes

              So why did you “Babylon?”
              For ANOTHER bullshit diversion!
              Nor has it stood in the way of bans on semi-automatic rifles, since 1939 … nor bans on “unusual and dangerous and unusual weapons,” since … forever (per Heller) … nor three pages of bans (54-56) in effect at ratification … nor various concealed carry regulations (also Heller)

              What’s next, the weather on Jupiter?
              George Washington’s pants size?

    3. The courts have found that a “violence tax” of say, a nominalish amount (like 3 cents a round on ammo) is like a sin tax on alcohol, to pay for the negative externialities of widespread gun ownership. Counties and places out west have passed these laws, in CA and WA I believe.

      1. “nominalish amount (like 3 cents a round on ammo)”

        You can get rimfire ammo for less than 3 cents a round, which would make that a >100% tax.

        1. I’m not saying I agree with it, but courts have upheld such taxes.

          By example, I looked up the Seattle tax. It’s $25 on guns and 2 cents on .22 and 5 cents on all other ammo. Of course, what happened is that people just went and bought their guns and ammo outside the city limits. For a box of 50 9mm, that’s $2.50. Not a huge imposition I suppose, not like the $1,000 tax the Mariana Islands imposed that was struck down.

          More appropriate to deal with the negative externialities of gun violence, would be a tax on…oh never mind.

          1. Sure, I wasn’t disputing they have been upheld – just that it was nominal 🙂

          2. Famously, the Supreme court in it’s NFA decision upheld a tax that was, in some cases, several thousand percent. Saying that, so long as Congress declared it to be a tax, and it yielded any revenue at all, they weren’t going to dispute that and call it a penalty.

            It took Roberts to decide that even if Congress DID call it a penalty, it would still be treated as a tax.

  7. I believe there’s a typo under the “Dangerous and Unusual” section, paragraph beginning with “Moreover”. You refer to the “US Supreme” where I believe you intended “US Supreme Court”.

  8. Semi-auto weapons on sale to civilians: 1890s

    Intermediate cartridge magazine-fed rifles, functionally identical to so-called “assault weapons”, on sale to civilians: 1940s

    The infamous AR-15, bete noir of all good gun controllers, on sale to civilians: 1962.

    It would be hard to argue that semi-auto weapons are not in common use and have been for more than a century.

    1. And my favorite, courtesy of the British Short Magazine Lee-Enfield BOLT ACTION rifle;
      The first Mad Minute record was set by Sergeant Major Jesse Wallingford in 1908, scoring 36 hits on a 48 inch target at 300 yards.
      That’s 36 AIMED rounds in one minute, using a bolt action rifle with a fixed 10 round magazine, starting with only 5 rounds in the magazine, and reloading with 5 round stripper clips.
      To quote ‘the senior’ in Heinlein’s books; “there is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, there are only dangerous men”

      1. While I agree with the premise, it’s easier for some skinny in Mogadishu to use an AK effectively than even the sweetest of military bolt actions, the Enfield.

        1. Using any firearm effectively means aimed fire, which takes training and self-discipline.

          Once those are obtained, aimed fire from an Enfield will outperform unaimed fire from an AK.

          1. Yea, and a 130lb boxer will beat up a 200lb fat guy who’s only played Punch Out on NES. I won’t deny that. Point is, Heinlein was full of shit. Fighters have weight classes, and armies adopt the best weapon for use given trade-offs of size, recoil, ammunition capacity, etc. And when those are all taken into consideration, everybody uses intermediate size rounds with high velocity out of of a semi-automatic, and mostly they are like an AR or AK.

      2. Has NOTHING to do with the weapons brought to militia service, from home, at ratification …. ESPECIALLY A BRITISH MILITARY WEAPON … when AMERICAN military weapons were EXCLUDED in 1939 … citing evidence the founders explicitly opposed military weapons, for the same reason they required a NON-professional militia, using weapons brought from home.

    2. It would be hard to argue that semi-auto weapons are not in common use and have been for more than a century.

      It would be easy to argue that you are so totally ignorant of the ACTUAL rulings … Kopel being a guntard.

      BOTH relevant rulings — US v Miller in 1939 ,… reaffirmed by Scalia in Heller … say in common use AT THE TIME. brought from home for militia service.” For rifles, the modern version of … a musket. NO semi-automatics.

      The actual sentence in Miller, also cited by Scalia (bold italics. with context)

      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 a few hundred words, in great detail on 2A limits — which is why the NRA was TOTALLY HELPLESS against the Assault Weapons ban (what it’s called) for TEN LONG YEARS..

      From Heller … next (only one link TO PROOF allowed per comment)

      1. “say in common use AT THE TIME.”

        You know this already, but it doesn’t say this.

        1. “say in common use AT THE TIME.”

          You know this already, but it doesn’t say this.

          THAT’S A DIRECT QUOTE FROM US VS MILLER, GOOBER … In Part One THAT YOU REPLIED TO .,.. IN BOLDFACE … WITH A FUCKING LINK!!!

          AGAIN in Part Two. from Scalia’s Heller.
          <blockquote<Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” BOLDFACE WITH QUOTES!!! …. ALSO WITH A LINK!!

          KEEP DANCING ON THAT STRING, manipulated by your political masters. Leave the heavy lifting to the adults in the room

    3. Part 2 – Heller

      Heller Ruling Page One, 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

      Pages 54-56 include a LENGTHY list of bans and regulations at ratification.

      BOTH Miller and Heller include lengthy cites from legislation, bans, controls and regulations … at ratification, and since.

      But, what are facts, to tribal manipulation and power-seeking?

      1. You may as well give up on the walls of spam text. Your miss quoting of Heller, and utter lack of a sincere ability to understand anyone else’s point of view, shows you are a classic narcissist with egomanical tendencies.

  9. Yet another attempt to square the circle of the 2nd Amendment. The plain meaning of the 2nd is that *all* arms are protected by the constitution, including fully automatic weapons, bazookas, surface to air missiles, fighter jets and field artilliery. The phrase “bear arms” clearly means going to war with weapons rather than just “carry on one’s person”. Cannon were in private hands at that time, and if the intent had been to restrict the amendment to only arms that could be physically lifted by one man it would have said so.

    The “self defense” part has no basis in the constitution. Self defense was merely one of the many uses to which arms were put. The prefatory “militia” clause clearly indicates that full blown millitary use was the primary concern, as does the writing of James Madison, who saw the citizen miliitia as the primary military defence against both external enemies and internal dictators. Accordingly the Federal firearms laws are clearly unconstitutional.

    But this brings another problem; do we really want to live in a society where any random extremist (their views protected, of course, under the 1st Amendment) can buy a surface to air missile, and keep and bear it under the departure end of an airport runway? Yes, we could arrest and try them, but only *after* they have fired the missile. School shooters armed with bazookas are another likely possibility, as is the use of high explosives in drug gang wars.

    The “dangerous and unusual” test is no help here; all weapons are dangerous when pointed at you; at best this might exclude weapons such as poison gas with unpredictable effects. As others in this thread have pointed out the “unusual” leg is uselessly vague, and in any case the current rarity of bazookas in private hands is likely due in large part to the highly restrictive regulations; prohibition cannot be its own justification.

    Finally there is the “lawful purpose” test. Clearly Madison envisaged that citizens would hold weapons for the lawful purpose of collective defense as well as personal self defense, and that training and practice would be required to that end as well. So if bazookas were legal to keep and bear then bazooka practice would be a lawful purpose for doing so, as would the hypothetical need to use one as part of collective defense. The fact that this is hypothetical does not make it invalid, any more than the equally hypothetical home invader that is used to justify so many small arms in private hands.

    So there we are. The plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment is plainly ridiculous in a modern society featuring both civilian airliners and the means for one person to shoot them down. However the existence of the 2nd is treated as some kind of fetish protecting the country against internal and external tyrants, making it impossible to update. I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number of incidents since 1900 where armed citizens have successfully fought the government for their rights, and that incident (the Battle of Athens) was fought by recently demobbed GIs using weapons taken from a government armoury.

    Heller attempts to thread a path through this minefield, first by discovering a right to self defense (OK, 9th Amendment) and then concluding, without any justification, that of course the existing federal bans on heavy weapons, bans on felons etc are constitutional.

    Meanwhile the large number of free societies where firearms are effectively banned or very heavily restricted, including pretty much all of Europe, give the lie to the claim, so often repeated in America, that all those people with guns somehow scare Uncle Sam so much that the US stays free. This, in a country with a military capable of reaching around the world and swatting any mosquito it doesn’t like. https://xkcd.com/652/

    1. Cool, you now have comic strips to help dismiss constitutional rights that you don’t like!

      Your XKCD comic strip implies that any person who stands up to the government will be the victim of a drone strike. I agree completely! This is why the Soviet Union won in Afghanistan, and the US won decisively in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan.

      Oh, wait.

      1. This is a response to several answers here which make broadly similar points. They are:

        1: The USA has got its ass kicked by 3rd world insurgents quite a few times.

        2: If the gun-owners in the USA got together they would be a force to rival the US Military.

        In third world world countries most people are peasant farmers, law enforcement is weak, and local or tribal affiliation is prime. For these people making a living means hard physical work, closeness to to environment (in the practical sense of knowing how to extract food and shelter from it) and depending on your local community for mutual defense and support against outsiders. That last includes central government. For them, that Heinlein quote about shooting at tax collectors is not a joke. This makes them effective guerilla fighters with minimal training. And of course this description also applies to the Americans who rebelled against George III.

        Contrast that with the typical American today, who lives in an air conditioned house, gets food from the local supermarket, and drives to work in an air-conditioned office or factory. If they get any exercise its at the gym, and most of them would feel squeamish about shooting a rabbit for the pot, never mind another human being. Of course that isn’t everybody, but don’t mistake some self-defense courses or target practice down at the range with a 9mm for military effectiveness. Being an effective soldier is a full-time job, but all that training is a massive force multiplier: in Gulf War I 700,000 coalition troops faced over a million Iraqi soldiers and simply walked over them. The coalition suffered only a few hundred casualties, and many of those were simply accidents or friendly fire rather than enemy action. This happened because the coalition were much better equipped and trained than the Iraqis.

        Today in the USA there is no “well regulated militia” of able-bodied men carrying their own weapons in the common defense; the vast majority of people are not prepared to dedicate a substantial fraction of their time and money to acquiring the necessary skills and equipment.

        So lets envisage a band of American citizens deciding to take on and overthrow the Federal Government by armed force. There are two ways this can go.

        1: If this is a small band, say a few hundred following some charismatic leader, then its going to be a very short story. Uncle Sam loses no sleep at all over this scenario; the FBI has had plenty of practice and knows exactly how to go about it. The Army won’t be needed.

        2: So lets say that a few million of the population decide to rise up in revolt. To give them the maximum opportunity, lets say they are a substantial majority in some parts of the USA. They vote to secede, but the Federal government refuses to recognize this and sends in the troops to “restore order”. The result is going to look like the the Chechen Wars; the two sides will fight over strategic cities, reducing them to rubble. The rebel side will be radicalized after the wishy-washy liberals either wise up or get out, so even if the rebels win they will institute a religious or ideological dictatorship based on whatever radical doctrine wins the day. Freedom loses regardless because that doctrine won’t be libertarianism, democracy and the American Way; once the bullets start flying military success requires strong charismatic leadership, and strong charismatic leaders don’t just hand over power once the peace treaty is signed.

        If this happens across the USA then the entire USA will be destroyed and 99% of its population will starve. I am not exaggerating here: once the electricity goes down everything stops, including every farm on the continent that does not have horse-drawn ploughs. The starving population will kill and eat everything; that farmer with the horses had better have enough bullets to protect them from thousands of starving refugees. The rest of the world will have its own problems because of the number of global supply chains that include the USA; thousands of key products you have never heard of will suddenly become unavailable. If we are unlucky the USA might actually take down the whole of modern technological civilization this way. Most people don’t realize just how deeply intertwingled global commerce is, and how many single points of failure it contains.

        (Side note: the one good thing about Donald Trump’s trade war is that it is encouraging diversity in global supply chains).

        So given the above, what is the point of having guns in civilian hands? There is no scenario in which they can do any good, and lots of scenarios in which they can cause catastrophic harm. A second American revolution is not going to be a replay of the first, and even then the American revolution was an anomaly; most revolutions were taken over by ruthless strong-men.

        1. “and even then the American revolution was an anomaly; most revolutions were taken over by ruthless strong-men.”

          This is because the American “revolution” wasn’t a revolution at all. We were already self-governing for all practical purposes, and then King George set out to deprive us of that. So we didn’t have to invent government in the middle of a war. We just had to tweak it a little.

          I think the key point here is that guns in civilian hands deter, by making it clear to would-be despots that they can’t prevail militarily over the population; They rule by consent, or not at all. Usually given that choice they’ll go with “by consent”.

          I’d also note that the most likely scenario for revolt in America is rural/suburban vs urban, that’s where the big political split is: The city centers vs everyone else. Even in the states the left rules, they rule from the cities.

          That makes a big difference in the event of a civil war/insurrection, because the city centers are only a few days away from food riots on any given day. They’re not remotely self-sufficient.

        2. “So lets say that a few million of the population decide to rise up in revolt.”

          I think you are badly missing the point again. Civilian arms aren’t about a few hundred, or even a few million, people deciding to revolt. It is to make sure that if ***most of the population*** agrees its time to change the government, they can do so; a government can’t just get away with “well, we have the loyalty of the 1% of the population that is in the military, and can just make the 99% dance to our tune or else”.

          The current Venezuelan government is pretty unpopular, but as long as the military stays loyal to the government, the populace is pretty well screwed.

          Also note that the Venezuelan population has had to largely make your transition from a modern prosperous society to a kinda-de-electrified society, and not because they revolted. In fact, if they could have revolted, things might not have gotten so bad.

        3. 2: If the gun-owners in the USA got together they would be a force to rival the US Military.

          How many are mindless conformists … and share your contempt for our Constitution, the Rule of Law, and America’s founding value: consent of the governed.

          in Gulf War I 700,000 coalition troops faced over a million Iraqi soldiers and simply walked over them

          We lost. Not as badly as VietNam, but lost.

          So given the above, what is the point of having guns in civilian hands? There is no scenario in which they can do any good, and lots of scenarios in which they can cause catastrophic harm.

          MASSIVE strawman fallacy Since the most likely scenario is … neither … as proven by over 200 years.

    2. You fail to recognize that great military powers have been brought to defeat or stand off by irregular guerrillas using small arms in unconventionally fought resistance actions. The mujahedin in Afghanistan, the IRA, the Boer Wars, Che, etc. Uncle Sam may not be over-run in its military might, but Uncle Sam’s treasonous lackey’s may have to reconcile a little bloodletting of their person for their efforts at usurping constitutional order (should it come to that).
      You get credit for recognizing that the 2A is not just for “self defense” in the home. All manner of incivility may be repulsed with civilian owned martial arms during times of natural disaster, internal insurrection, and theoretically, external invasion.

      1. The US currently has over 350 million guns distributed among 100 million owners, and nearly all of these are unregistered. This is more than sufficient to start a rebellion. If even 3% of the owners decide to rebel, they outnumber the US military, many of whom will be sympathetic or refuse to attack their own citizens.

        Rifles are no match for a tank, F16 or drone, but they are a match for the fuel tankers, crews and other infrastructure necessary to operate tanks, F16s or drones. There will be no Tiananmen Square dramatic standoffs. No rebels will stand in an open field to be run over by a tank or strafed by an F16. They will attack at another weak point and make the tanks and F16s inoperable.

      2. Q) Why does Grifhunter have such COMTEMPT for “Consent of the governed?
        A) All authoritarians do

      3. You get credit for recognizing that the 2A is not just for “self defense” in the home.

        That’s the Ninth Amendment. The Second is about defending the security of a free State.

        All manner of incivility may be repulsed with civilian owned martial arms during times of natural disaster, internal insurrection, and theoretically, external invasion.

        Constitution says otherwise. Clearly.

    3. “Meanwhile the large number of free societies where firearms are effectively banned or very heavily restricted”

      You almost had me fooled and then I read this line. 1/10, try again.

      You are not free if the government has a monopoly on force. You live in a slave state where you are dependent upon government permission to exercise your natural rights. Just because each society has a different threshold for intolerable offenses by government doesn’t mean that those societies are free.

      1. You are defining freedom as being able to own guns, which just begs the question. Try considering a wider definition, including the other Amendments.

        1. No, I’m defining freedom as recognizing natural rights and structuring society around it by forbidding the government from monopolizing force, as opposed to a society where these rights are treated as privileges bestowed upon you by a benevolent government that has the ability to kill you when it feels like it.

          1. I’m trying to imagine a country where the government does not have a monopoly on force. Just about everywhere you have the right of self defense, but you are obliged to bring in law enforcement as soon as possible, and once they arrive you let them get on with it. The USA is no different in this.

            I live in the UK, and if attacked I have the right to defend myself with whatever comes to hand: fists, kitchen knife, golf club, whatever. I just don’t have the right to keep a 9mm pistol for the purpose.

            (Incidentally, burglars in the UK pretty much never go armed precisely because nobody else does, and because they know that if they *do* carry a weapon then it will be a SWAT team who arrest them instead of the local police, and the sentence for merely *carrying* a gun during a burglary is several times that for the burglary itself.)

            So how does this work in the USA? Where were all those freedom-loving gun-owners when the Japanese-Americans were rounded up and imprisoned in WWII? Where were those gun-owners when black Americans were being lynched with the connivance of local law enforcement? Where are those gun-owners today when the police use “civil forfeiture” to confiscate property without due process? Where are those gun-owners today when innocent Americans are gunned down by trigger-happy police? Try pulling out a gun and defending a fellow citizen against your government. If you survive I’ll be interested to hear how it went.

            1. “Where were all those freedom-loving gun-owners when the Japanese-Americans were rounded up and imprisoned in WWII?”

              Serious answer: that’s a shameful episode of American history, but it probably wasn’t the right time to start an armed insurrection. There were other people in the world that needed America’s help at the time.

              Snark answer: they were lined up sending old hunting rifles to Britain.

              “Where were those gun-owners when black Americans were being lynched with the connivance of local law enforcement?”

              Certainly another shameful era. It’s worth considering, though, that some of those gun owners were actually using their guns to defend themselves against lynching. With no guns in the picture, the mob of 50 Kluxers is going to have its way with their victim without risk to themselves. When the lynchee is armed, each Kluxer has to face a tiny possibility of dying themselves. That can reduce the attraction quite a bit.

              “Where are those gun-owners today when the police use “civil forfeiture” to confiscate property without due process? Where are those gun-owners today when innocent Americans are gunned down by trigger-happy police?”

              I think you have a very warped view here. The notion is emphatically not that you get out your gun every time city hall displeases you. The notion is that having the people retain the actual power to resist a tyrannical government is the very last resort when every other option has failed. It’s like an ejection seat – you don’t pull the handle just because a warning light comes on.

              1. Guns no longer provide the power to resist a tyrannical government because the result of any serious firefight between armed forces today is total destruction. All those places in the 3rd world where the USA and USSR got their asses kicked had little local infrastructure: people are still using bullocks to pull ploughs in Afghanistan, so when stuff gets blown up food can still be produced. But in the USA everything depends on electricity. Once the electricity substations get blown up there is no fuel, with no fuel for tractors the fields cannot be ploughed and planted, and arguments about civil liberties are replaced by fights to the death over dwindling supplies of food.

                1. We’re going to just have to disagree. I find the notion that we just have to go along with tyranny to be overly pessimistic.

                  Chamberlain tried that at Munich, after all, and Europe pretty much got the wholesale destruction anyway.

                2. Child, if you’re going to flog the US for its sins, you better start with your own country and its globalist colonial history first.

                  1. CHILD, WHY DID WE WAGE A REVOLUTION …. SHORTLY AFTER SLAVERY WAS ENDED IN ENGLAND AND WALES? (COURT RULED SLAVERY A VIOLATION OF THE COMMON LAW, which then governed what would become the United States, but did not – yet – apply to colonies)

                    IN 1803, PARLIAMENT BANNED THE SLAVE TRADE IN THE ENTIRE BRITISH COMMONWEALTH.

                    IN 1833, PARLIAMENT BANNED SLAVERY THROUGHOUT THE COMMONWEALTH.

                    you better start with your own country and its globalist colonial history first.The globalist colonial history that banned slavery — WORLDWIDE — three decades before the US did? THAT globalist colonial history? (smirk)

                    The globalist colonial history that banned the slave trade — WORLDWIDE — before the US did for itself?

                    **Why does the alt-right ALWAYS sink to whataboutism … when they lose … GLOATING THAT AMERICA IS NO BETTER THAN ANYWHERE ELSE? WTF???

                    ***HISTORY QUIZ FOR ANTI-LIBERTY GOMERS.

                    1) Why did England ban slavery, nearly a century before we did?

                    2) Why did even MEXICO ban slavery before we did? (which is why Texas left)

                    3) Why did our Constitution FORCE FREE STATES TO RETURN SLAVES WHO ESCAPED TO FREEDOM … AFTER ENGLAND (AND WALES) HAD BANNED SLAVERY OUTRIGHT? (Fugitive slave clause – Article 4, Section 2. Clause 3.)

                    4) Why did our Constitution make SO MANY COMPROMISES to slavery …. AFTER England and Wales had BANNED it?

                    5) Why does the alt-right ALWAYS defend racism … led by Trump’s DISGUSTING lies to defend the mass violence launched by his loyal neo-nazis and white supremacists in Charlottesville???

                    6) Will you evade, divert and change the subject YET AGAIN?

                    The defense (of liberty) rests

                    1. Clarify:

                      you better start with your own country and its globalist colonial history first.

                      The globalist colonial history that banned slavery — WORLDWIDE — three decades before the US did? THAT globalist colonial history? (smirk)

            2. Where were those gun-owners when black Americans were being lynched with the connivance of local law enforcement?

              You seem fairly ignorant about this topic, so let me help you gain some knowledge:

              How the Second Amendment Helped Civil Rights Activists Resist Jim Crow

              Quote:
              “I’m alive today because of the Second Amendment and the natural right to keep and bear arms,” declared John R. Salter Jr., the civil rights leader who helped to organize the famous sit-ins against segregated lunch counters in Jackson, Mississippi. “Like a martyred friend of mine, NAACP staffer Medgar W. Evers, I, too, was on many Klan death lists and I, too, traveled armed: a .38 special Smith and Wesson revolver and a 44/40 Winchester carbine,” Salter recalled. “The knowledge that I had these weapons and was willing to use them kept enemies at bay.”

              1. YOU FAILED … AGAIN … AMONG YOUR WORST OF MANY BLUNDERS ON THE PAGE!

                YOU WERE CHALLENGED “Where were those gun-owners when black Americans were being lynched with the connivance of local law enforcement”

                A) You ADMIT that ONLY blacks got involved. BZZZZT
                B) Those “famous sit-ins” were LONG AFTER the lynchings you FAILED to address, the ones “with the connivance of local law enforcement.”

          2. Government “monopolizing force” is right-wing craziness, or Rothbardian anarchy (which is authoritarian)

            The people have chosen to monopolize DEFENSIVE force within government. which is our right, assures an even playing field, and makes sense in many other ways..

            No, I’m defining freedom as recognizing natural rights and structuring society around it by forbidding the government from monopolizing force,

            You literally defy natural rights, just as you confuse offensive and defensive forces … while denying “consent of the governed” in forming voluntary associations.

            as opposed to a society where these rights are treated as privileges bestowed upon you by a benevolent government that has the ability to kill you when it feels like it.

            It’s a massive strawman fallacy to assume those are the only options … but so convenient to your contempt for individual rights (and your confusion regarding force),

        2. The Second Amendment protects the other Amendments. All of the supposedly “free” countries you care about are far worse when it comes to free speech and other fundamental rights. Far worse.

          1. You fail to show cause and effect,
            And your opening statement … satire?

          2. And SCOTUS has ruled that NO Amendment is superior to any other (unless it repeals an earlier one)

            This is the claim, most often, by crazed right-wingers, who assert that 2A is intended to sanction armed revolution, which is bat-shit crazy
            a) Violates the opening clause, which states the REAL purpose,
            b) REJECTS consent of the governed, because they are pure and total authoritarians,

        3. The Bill of Rights is not 10 separate amendments, they were conceived and passed as a package, standing together.

          The 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the plainest statement of a right in the entire constitution. There is no place in the constitution where “the people” refers to anything but individuals. It plainly reserves to individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

          A lot of people in government that are of the opinion that they can do anything they are not specifically prohibited from doing, like prohibiting concealed or open carry. The tenth amendment addresses that claim. The tenth amendment has also been used by the states to limit federal intrusion into their rightful powers. The tenth doesn’t stop at the states though, it also sets a hierarchy of rights and powers, telling the states hands off individual rights.

          The 10th amendment makes a pretty plain statement about rights reserved to the people:
          “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR to the people.”

          1. This is part of my point: the plain meaning of the 2nd Amendment is exactly what you say. However that plain meaning is no longer practical because of the huge increase in destructive power granted by modern technology. Hence jurisprudence on the subject has to engage in complicated evasions to avoid confronting this fact.

            The line is currently drawn at full-auto weapons, but the constitution says nothing about semi-auto versus full-auto because the state of the art at the time was a muzzle-loading rifle or cannon. So a ban on semi-automatic firearms would be just as constitutional as a ban on full-auto firearms.

            1. So a ban on semi-automatic firearms would be just as constitutional as a ban on full-auto firearms.The 1994 ban was fully constitutional. Technically because the only weapons protected are modern versions of those in common use at ratification. AND brought from home for militia service.

          2. The Bill of Rights is not 10 separate amendments, they were conceived and passed as a package, standing together.

            … of ten separate amendments, which is blatantly obvious by their structured numbering. And how they were created.

            The 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the plainest statement of a right in the entire constitution. There is no place in the constitution where “the people” refers to anything but individuals.

            “We the People” is collective … and every instance where People is capitalized.
            “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States”

            It plainly reserves to individuals the right to keep and bear arms.

            Your apparent confusion is addressed in Heller

            <a https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
            (Page One)
            1(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 to those used by the militia, (((in the 18th century)))

            And Scalia used a totally different argument, in MAKING it an individual right. (Pages 34-35)

            A lot of people in government that are of the opinion that they can do anything they are not specifically prohibited from doing, like prohibiting concealed or open carry.

            Also false, and also addressed in Heller

            The tenth amendment addresses that claim.

            Only IF it does not violate the Ninth.

            The tenth amendment has also been used by the states to limit federal intrusion into their rightful powers.

            Not applicable. Ninth Amendment.

            The tenth doesn’t stop at the states though, it also sets a hierarchy of rights and powers, telling the states hands off individual rights.

            The 10th says the opposite and deals only with powers. Rights are in the 9th.

            The 10th amendment makes a pretty plain statement about rights reserved to the people:
            “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, OR to the people.”

            It says POWERS, and “respectively” means states are superior to people, on POWERS. Rights are the Ninth.

    4. the large number of free societies where firearms are effectively banned or very heavily restricted

      Why do you support increasing the rate of rape and other violent crime in America? Is that what makes a society free in your view?

      Huge increase in crime across UK with 29% increase in both rape and robbery

      By comparison:

      US: 130,603 rapes in 2016 for a rate of 32 per hundred thousand population

      England and Wales: 48,773 rapes in 2017 for a rate of 84 per hundred thousand population – nearly three times as much!

      1. Rape figures are subject to huge confounding factors at every stage from reporting to conviction. Homicide is not subject to those factors. Try comparing the homicide rates instead.

        1. I like your moving goalposts. Are they motorized?

          Homicide is fortunately a rare crime. With the sole exception of homicide, the UK is a more violent country than the US. You are more likely to become the victim of a crime of violence in the UK than in the US.

          UK is violent crime capital of Europe (Telegraph)

          Quote:
          It means there are over 2,000 crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK, making it the most violent place in Europe… By comparison, America has an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population.

          Do you feel safe and free when you are disarmed and more likely to be a victim of violent crime?

          1. I like your cherries. You must have picked them very carefully.

            You are counting convictions for rape. The number of actual rapes is many times the number of actual rapes. To get from actual rape to conviction you need:

            1: Reporting. Many victims are afraid of their attacker, or afraid of not being believed, or afraid of the process that must be followed to get a conviction. We know that many rapes are not reported to the authorities, but we don’t know exactly what the proportions are.

            2: If reported, the victim must be believed. Police and prosecutors have discretion to believe or disbelieve as they see fit. Police have frequently disbelieved victims from prejudice (as in “she must have been asking for it”), and there have been lots of cases of victims being “disbelieved” as a form of workload management, or to keep the clear-up rates high. We don’t know how often this happens.

            3: If reported and believed, the prosecution have to find enough evidence to get a conviction. Many rape allegations come down to his word versus hers about consent, and in the absence of other evidence that isn’t enough. Even when there is evidence, it has to be gathered and processed: google “rape kit scandal”. Overworked police departments may not be able to gather and process sufficient evidence even when it exists. All this means that many credible allegations are never prosecuted.

            4: In the USA most prosecutions are resolved by plea bargaining (which the UK doesn’t have), so an allegation of rape may well turn into a guilty plea for a much lesser form of sexual assault, meaning it won’t appear in your figures.

            So there is no reason to assume that the proportion of rapes that result in a rape conviction is anywhere near the same in the US and the UK.

            Compare that with counting homicides. In both the UK and USA dead bodies are carefully counted and tracked. If there is evidence that the deceased met a violent end then it is counted as a homicide even if no conviction is ever obtained. Thus homicide numbers are a good proxy for levels of violence which can be compared between countries, unlike rape convictions.

            1. Correction: typo in second paragraph. I meant:

              The number of actual rapes is many times the number of convictions for rape.

            2. Some handwaving! You allow your rapists to run free, and you prevent your women from defending themselves.

              Just like Australia.

              Australia: More violent crime despite gun ban

              –Begin Quote:
              Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:

              * Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
              * During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
              * Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
              * Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
              * At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
              * Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.

            3. 4: In the USA most prosecutions are resolved by plea bargaining (which the UK doesn’t have), so an allegation of rape may well turn into a guilty plea for a much lesser form of sexual assault, meaning it won’t appear in your figures.

              When you don’t know about something, it appears that you just make up stuff. Here is the definition of the single word “rape”:

              https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/rape

              The revised UCR definition of rape is: Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim. Attempts or assaults to commit rape are also included; however, statutory rape and incest are excluded.

              You seem to be the kind of person who lives in ideology and doesn’t pay attention to the realities of the world.

        2. KevinP was already crushed on that!

          Try comparing the homicide rates instead.

          ONE MORE TIME

          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

          ***MASS SHOOTINGS ARE EVEN WORSE

          FACT: England’s 2nd gun control (1996) saw ONE mass shooting in 23 years
          Adjust for population (5:1) and they had 5 shootings in 22 years … Do the math.
          Mass Shootings Per year
          UK = 0.2 per year
          US = 426.7 per year = 3,000,000% higher mass shootings
          Such CONTEMPT for “sanctity of life” can ONLY be the ANTI-CHRIST

          *** 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 AND Left..

          Left – Right = Zero
          Libertarians: speaking Truth to Power, both left and right, for over 50 years. Listen now to their death rattle … as a growing majority of Americans SELF-IDENTIFY with libertarian values: fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

          1. KevinP was crushed, lol. It must be quite a trip to be inside your head.

            We’ve already established that you don’t care about rape and violent crime in general. But gun control doesn’t improve homicide rates either.

            Murder and homicide rates before and after gun bans

            Quotes: (but read the whole article and see the charts)
            Original post: Every place that has been banned guns (either all guns or all handguns) has seen murder rates go up. You cannot point to one place where murder rates have fallen, whether it’s Chicago or D.C. or even island nations such as England, Jamaica, or Ireland.

            … Take the case of the handgun ban in England and Wales in January 1997. After the ban, clearly homicide rates bounce around over time, but there is only one year (2010) where the homicide rate is lower than it was in 1996. The immediate effect was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates. Firearm homicide rate had almost doubled between 1996 and 2002. The homicide and firearm homicide rates only began falling when there was a large increase in the number of police officers during 2003 and 2004. Despite the huge increase in the number of police, the murder rate still remained slightly higher than the immediate pre-ban rate.

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

            Germany has a lower crime rate than the UK, and all German police officers are armed. I’ve seen them in person. WHY? And HOW?

          3. LOL at The Truth Teller. It is like watching a crazy bellowing elephant off its meds. However, for those interested in rational discussion, here is another inconvenient fact:

            Mass shootings and killings are unfortunately far from unique to America. The link below has an interactive map where you can browse mass public shootings by country:

            CPRC: How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average

            Quote:
            By our count, the US makes up less than 1.43% of the mass public shooters, 2.11% of their murders, and 2.88% of their attacks. All these are much less than the US’s 4.6% share of the world population. Attacks in the US are not only less frequent than other countries, they are also much less deadly on average.

  10. “Unlike “common” arms, “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be prohibited, according to Heller. Any arm that is “common” cannot be “unusual.”

    “According to the Heller Court, machine guns, such as the M-16 automatic rifle, can be prohibited, because they are dangerous and [un]usual. [sic, correction assumed]”

    “the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether [the arms] are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.”

    “Prohibition cannot be its own justification, and prohibition does not exempt the prohibiting jurisdiction from the common use test.”

    Is the cognitive dissonance here going over everybody’s heads?

    Machines guns like the M-16 are unusual PRECISELY because they were effectively prohibited by federal law back in 1934. The above tests DO in fact serve to justify an earlier prohibition that they may have forbidden had they been applied before that prohibition.

    Given the snail’s pace at which judicial relief proceeds today, I can easily envision a situation where the federal government enacts an unconstitutional prohibition, and by the time the prohibition is overturned, the firearms in question are no longer in common use because they have been confiscated, so the prohibition suddenly becomes constitutional. Much like the EPA scrubber mandates that, by the time they were declared unconstitutional, had already forced the industry into 100% compliance anyway.

    1. “Unlike “common” arms, “dangerous and unusual weapons” may be prohibited, according to Heller. Any arm that is “common” cannot be “unusual.”

      Common AT RATIFICATION, AND brought from home for militia service. The REAL Heller. READ IT. Ignore Breitbart/Infowars/DailyCaller/Fox/NRA/Stormfront, etc.

      “According to the Heller Court, machine guns, such as the M-16 automatic rifle, can be prohibited, because they are dangerous and [un]usual. [sic, correction assumed]”

      WRONG AGAIN. They did not exist in the 18th century, From Heller

      “It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause.

      That’s the issue, which he dismisses.

      But as we have said, 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.

      Weapons in common use in the 1800s

      “the pertinent Second Amendment inquiry is whether [the arms] are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes today.”

      Do I believe Scalia or … you, or Daffy Duck?

      “Prohibition cannot be its own justification,

      It never has been.

      Is the cognitive dissonance here going over everybody’s heads?

      INFORMED readers knew INSTANTLY that your mind has been programmed. That you’ve NEVER read Heller yourself. EVER

      Machines guns like the M-16 are unusual PRECISELY because they were effectively prohibited by federal law back in 1934.

      Scalia says you’re full of shit, Get a new puppetmaster, else you publicly humiliate yourself again, Just sayin’

      Given the snail’s pace at which judicial relief proceeds today,

      YOUR OWN snail’s pace, in reading Heller … after 11 years!

      I can easily envision a situation where the federal government enacts an unconstitutional prohibition, and by the time the prohibition is overturned, the firearms in question are no longer in common use because they have been confiscated, so the prohibition suddenly becomes constitutional.

      SEND OBAMA BACK TO KENYA!
      EXPOSE THE FAKE MOON LANDING!!
      KILL ALL THE ALIENS IN ROSWELL, NM!
      TRUMP HAS A BETTER FISCAL AND ECONOMIC RECORD THAN OBAMA!

  11. What a strange 12 years this has been.

    A democratically elected legislature tries to enact a provision that a great majority support, with a clear public safety motive, and now we are thrust into a bizarre analytical world that has nothing to do with real life, and certainly nothing to do with militias or the purpose of the Second Amendment. It would be funny, if the real world consequences weren’t so dire.

    1. The point of having a Constitution is to protect certain rights from majoritarian action.

      And in any case, there isn’t even majority support for banning these guns!

      Gallup 2018: Majority in U.S. Now Oppose Ban on Assault Rifles

      Quote:
      Americans’ support for a ban on semi-automatic guns in the U.S. has dropped eight percentage points from a year ago, when opinions were more evenly divided after the mass shooting in Las Vegas. Last year’s measure was unusually high for the trend over the past several years; the current 40% is back to within a few points of where it was between 2011 and 2016.

      Support has dropped in all groups: Republicans, Democrats, Independents, both gun-owning and non-gun-owning households.

      1. The point of having a Constitution is to protect certain rights from majoritarian action.

        And in any case, there isn’t even majority support for banning these guns!

        Which is WHY Scalia trumps Gallup!!!

      2. What about California voters? This is the (democratically-elected) California legislature we’re talking about.

        And no, there is no individual right to own guns. It might have been implicit the 2A but that was on its face not its purpose. Also implicit in those days was the right to own slaves.

        And no, you can’t just wave Heller at me and say it’s now the law of the land. I’m old enough to remember VC in pre-Heller days, and U.S. v. Miller was never a conversation stopper.

        1. LOL, thanks for playing. The debate over the Second Amendment is over. The gun control side lost in the Supreme Court. Not a single justice, even the liberal dissenters accepted the bogus collective right concept. More importantly, 75% of the American public supports an individual right to own a gun. And for the “militia clause” and what it might mean, please read:

          The Commonplace Second Amendment

          1. Go back to your basement to polish your gun (…)
            Waiting for a serious response.

            1. You’ll never get one from KevinP.

              He got TOTRALLY SUCKERED by a “study” which concluded the mass shootings in the United States are well below the WORLD average … when most of the world has NO or VERY FEW guns!

              https://reason.com/2020/02/12/what-arms-are-common/#comment-8130351

              His “study” also SHOWS no data for India — 17% of world population. And Chinas has NO private guns for 18% of the world population,

              Oh yeah, he also swallowed that the US had only 394 mass shooting VICTIMS … in 17 years!

              Like Bernie Bros. guntards swallow ANYTHING!

              1. You aren’t even bothering to read any more. The mass murder map shows 0.21 victims killed per 100K population for India, compared to 0.13 for the US.

                And if you click on the Incidents tab, you will find each and every incident listed!

                But hey, don’t bother to read, it’s not that anyone bothers to read what your write, after all.

                1. You aren’t even bothering to read any more. The mass murder map shows 0.21 victims killed per 100K population for India, compared to 0.13 for the US.

                  FUCKING PSYCHO. INDIA IS GREY — GREY IS DEFINED AS NO DATA —

                  AND YOU FUCKING LIED AGAIN
                  RIGHT BELOW US VICTIMS PER 100K IS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF VICTIMS … 394 VICTIMS OF MASS SHOOTINGS …. IN 17 YEARS!

                  ****YOU ALSO FAILED TO RESPOND TO HOW FUCKING STUPID THE ENTIRE RIGHT-WING WEB SITE IS … A WORLD AVERAGE IS TOTAL BULLSHIT FOR GOOBERS … WHEN MOST OF THAT WORLD HAS NO GUNS OR VERY FEW,

                  *****FOURTH REPEAT
                  THE UK HAS 0.9 HOMICIDES -PER 100K
                  WE HAVE 5.3

                  *********HYSTERICALLY
                  ******* YOU WITLESSLY PROVED THAT GUN REGULATIONS CAUSED THAT HUGE DIFFERENCE!!
                  https://reason.com/2020/02/11/magazines-over-10-rounds-were-well-known-to-the-founders/#comment-8130472

            2. Oooh, captcrisis thinks he can insult people, lol.

              1. Not as crazy-often as you do it!

                He said he was waiting for a serious response … and you caved AGAIN, pussy.

        2. What about California voters? This is the (democratically-elected) California legislature we’re talking about.

          The Bill of Rights applies to the entire nation, not just to whatever fascism a state or local jurisdiction can come up with.

          1. Suddenly it’s federalism Uber Alles.

            1. Conservatives are like that!
              Federalism ,…. only when it’s con-veeeeeen-yent
              Constitutional conservatives … only when it’s con-veeeeeen-yent
              Religious liberty … only when it’s con-veeeeeen-yent
              Sanctity of Life … only when it’s con-veeeeeen-yent
              Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

            2. LOL at a fascist progressive sneering at federalism.

              1. LOL …. You BOTH fucked up what Federalism means!!!

  12. I have a fairly simple argument.

    If you ban center fire rifles with thumb holes or hand grips I’d file suit on ADA grounds. My wrist and elbows don’t work like they use to and holding a rifle without one is extremely difficult and sometimes painful for me.

    The features being banned don’t make the rifle more dangerous and I think that these types of targeting would have to pass a higher scrutiny and governmental reasoning to surpass a disability challenge.

    1. I have a cleft pallet. If we change the entire Constitution, just for you, I will go blind.

  13. The court should toss the “dangerous and unusual” test that Scalia created. Imagine if the court were to apply the test to dangerous and unusual SPEECH, or THOUGHTS, or RELIGIONS, or ASSEMBLIES, or PROPERTY, or PEOPLE. We should all seek to be as dangerous and unusual to oppressive, tyrannical conformist collectivist statists as we possibly can. They should not only find our speech dangerous and unusual, they OUGHT to be more than willing to defend such speech to the death, as Descartes once pledged. It is through dangerous and unusual thoughts that progress in culture, art, science and technology is achieved, at the expense of the insular and insufferable orthodoxy of scholastics and academicians enforcing intellectual dogma.
    Given the 2nd Amendment exists not for personal self defense against criminals, but to arm the citizenry to defend against tyrannical government, the average law abiding citizen must be free to own weaponry that is dangerous and unusual to such a degree that no politician, or bureaucrat, or general, should dare to think that the government could out-gun its citizenry.

    1. Justice Alito in his Majority opinion in Caetano v. Massachusetts ends the “dangerous and unusual,” argument against these rifles…….from the opinion…”—-As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

      That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). …..Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. 

      Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

      Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692. 

      If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous. 554 U. S., at 636. A fortiori, stun guns that the Commonwealth’s own witness described as “non-lethal force,” Tr. 27, cannot be banned on that basis.———“

    2. ANOTHER UNINFORMED!!!!!

      The court should toss the “dangerous and unusual” test that Scalia created.

      HE DID NOT “CREATE” IT (lol)

      …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.

      SEE THE CONTEXT? Miller was the original ruling, 80 years ago.

      “At the time” means at ratification. Guntards say it means “currently.” — bat-shit crazy, in the context. And bans on “dangerous and unusual weapons” kicks their asses anyhow.
      Scalia lists THREE PAGES OF SUCH BANS (54-56) … on top of the lengthy lists in Miller.

      Imagine if the court were to apply the test to dangerous and unusual SPEECH, or THOUGHTS, or RELIGIONS, or ASSEMBLIES, or PROPERTY, or PEOPLE.WE DO!!!! (Except thoughts)
      PLUS, those rights are not limited by a militia clause.

    3. .Given the 2nd Amendment exists not for personal self defense against criminals, but to arm the citizenry to defend against tyrannical government,

      NEITHER.
      It’s to DEFEND a free state. Read IT. Only authoritarians would have such contempt for “consent of the governed” and the Constitution.

      Since SCOTUS has ruled the exact opposite, 80 years ago, and affirmed by Heller, your way over the edge.

  14. Did anyone point out that Justice Scalia, in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park ( His dissent was to say he wanted to here the case, but the court declined.) that the AR-15, by name, was protected by the 2nd Amendment. Isn’t the fact that he wrote the opinion in Heller, and that he clarifies his opinion in Friedman v Highland Park relevant? This is what he stated…….”Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.”

    Why don’t more people bring this up? In Caetano, Justice Alito also takes on and ends the “Dangerous and Unusual, “argument…….”—-As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)).

    That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). “

    1. Sorry, you have been TOTALLY brainwashed.

      ”Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 6

      Bullshit. Heller says the EXACT OPPOSITE
      IN GREAT DETAIL. You been REALLY manipulated

      See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”). “

      “at the time” is …. AT RATIFICATION. This is by far the craziest bullshit by brainwashed guntards

  15. The Court … considered no social science evidence

    At least they got one thing right.

Please to post comments