He's very much like trump. No real reason he should have power, but people are easily bamboozled and he's a bamboozler. Just say no is his wife's campaign. He was running cocaine and guns while dogging them from the other side of his mouth the filthy little hypocrite.
There are current law suits against the NFA already. Several, on various theories and with various plaintiffs and jurisdictions. Give it a minute. Its like an edible: Don't just immediately gobble more because you're impatient. Let it happen.
That's not the test however, we've never set constitutional rights based on what criminals use. See Caetano v Mass. Also see NYSRPA v Bruen What about them?
See Marque and Reprisal clause. It contemplates the need for bare permission to start attacking marked shipping on the high seas. Historically we used it in place of a navy or in supplement to same, until the Euros called all privateering an act of war because we were so much better at it than they were. Citizens owned cannons, a purely offensive weapon. Citizens owned ships mounted with same, bearing grenades and other ordnance, for use in defense of their property and persons on the high seas. A letter of Marque or a Reprisal was not permission to arm, it was permission to attack and either reave so much to fill a debt and the rest went to the nation or take a share of a prize sold at home.
"Mass shootings " implies she meant US domestic criminal use. If she meant in combat since WW1, her question really has no meaning.
Irrelevant to the standard. "In common use" makes, and allows, no reference to the means of manufacture.
yeah we have discussed your tactics before-you want to claim that banning semi auto rifles is no different than banning purely offensive weapons that are not in common use for lawful purposes. and we both know that you don't support people owning MAWS or SAMS so your argument is based on a completely dishonest foundation. I have always said that while the line is not precise-if civilian law enforcement use it or if it is the standard issue infantry individual weapon then it's protected.
I figured her question had no meaning either way. The data simply isn't there for such a niche reference. Its like trying to isolate all crimes by AR: You have to look at the data IE all crimes by RIFLES GENERALLY, and pull every case and hope its noted exactly. In a lot of cases, 9mm or .45 bullets will be what's listed, and whether or no the gun was a handgun with a giggle switch or a guy with a finger like jerry miculek, or a submachinegun, will be left to the imagination.
yes but those are not commonly used by private citizens for lawful purposes and if you read Cruikshank, the underlying natural right of self defense is clearly implied as is in the cases of the writings of St George Tucker, Rawls and Justice Story
See Marque and Reprisal clause. It contemplates a populace with the ability to take ships of the line needing only bare permission to strike first. Historically speaking, since we must cite to the text, history and tradition of the nation during the Founding for the limits per Bruen, the US had the capacity from the text of the Constitution plainly, to say nothing of its implications, and traditionally did in fact exercise this capacity to great effect. So much so the Euros complained of it bitterly and lobbied to change international law which had stood since prior to there BEING such a concept IE that privateering was a way for citizens of nations and nations themselves to settle grievances short of actual casus belli. Cruikshank is useful for some citations, as it gives a lot of good history. I use it myself for the pre-existing rights bit. However, its not the end all be all as a source for history. Hence why the marque and reprisal bit is so important, it outlines that pre-existing right as certainly including ordnance of various types useful for ship to ship combat. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA590294.pdf ^ An excellent dissertation with numerous useful citations https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5638&context=uclrev A different perspective from a political bent (anti as opposed to the pro above) but still packs that history in. Cannons and ships were privately owned. One needed no permission to own, one had a right. https://www.law.georgetown.edu/constitution-center/constitution/marque-and-reprisal/ Some additional cites you can look into if you're curious.
He's still a grabber. Further: If he'd stuck to his guns and used that sly serpent's tongue he otherwise used to deceive and manipulate the nation to explain he was doing so, why, what was necessary and why IE stronger turn out or they're going to take your rights away, you have absolutely no idea how it might have turned out.
The right to keep and bear arms initially is protected only by the 2nd and is not incorporated as against the states. This right, when read alongside the marque and reprisal clause which was and remains an active part of the Constitution intentionally and painstakingly placed by the Founders, includes the rights to own various things you might call 'ordnance' that is most useful in ship to ship combat on the high seas. Post 14th amendment, you have an amendment to the constitution which alters its text. This text now applies the BOR against the states in the same way it applied only to the feds previously. Therefore: I think your question is a bit silly in this modern day. You're asking what's covered by the 2nd originally (ie feds only for the 2a) or the 2nd as applied to the states by the 14th. The 10th reserved all then unmentioned rights to the states and people respectively. The 10th state side includes things like state police powers, something the feds don't have, which is part of what the 10th is implying and what the 9th helps flesh out. 9th is if its not listed doesn't mean its not in there for the people to have, 10th makes clear the feds have the powers listed only, none others IE no police power amongst other things. It was supposed to stop mission creep, it hasn't helped much. Honestly, I'm not sure what the 10th realistically covers for the people only in the modern era. Regardless, post 14th the 2a applies to the states the same way it does to the feds which so far as I can tell means shall not be infringed. Period. Whether or not you can get some milquetoast feds to agree, YMMV
Try this next time: Any lawful purpose has been said to include recreational purposes. It brings me joy to create and use these interesting machines. Purpose satisfied. Further, you can always point out that americans have been making their own guns since prior to the nation being a nation.
I am asking what you think are the arms covered by the negative restriction on government. I don't think weapons designed to attack an area are covered,
I think they very much are covered, as I have explained and linked to with sources in depth twice now. That doesn't mean you get to use them in a way that causes harm you're not authorized to cause, as already explained in my explanation of the marque and reprisal clause being explicitly the granting of permission to strike first, not to arm up with weapons capable of area attack. The above restriction would seem to cross off entirely nuclear fission weapons, chemical weapons of various sorts, and biologics: They each share a feature that is entirely uncontrollable by any user whether its fall out, poisoning the land so randos walking by get the burn later or as it blows down the lane, or random biologic replication and spread. But a grenade? Doesn't really have that issue.
I can see that point but I base my both on the natural right of self defense and the concept of estoppel: no government can claim weapons it supplies its civilian employees for self defense are unsuitable for such use in the hands of other civilians
And I understand that, but I'm simply using the actual text of the constitution, our nation's history and traditions of actual use of that text during the Founding. As per Bruen. Further: Cops have all kinds of grenades dude. Launchers for em too.
