The collectible part of the equation is that is goes bang when you pull the trigger. To neuter it into something else looses all collectible worth. A registered M-16 goes for $10k plus on the open market. A non functional M-16 “parts gun” that has been deactivated goes for about $300.
It’s kind of like the difference between a Jawa figurine still in its package with the rare cloth cape and that same Jawa figurine that has been played with by every kid in the family, chewed up and spit out by the baby, and eaten and later pooped out by the family dog. There is no comparison.
It won’t change anytime soon. The Court cannot reverse itself so soon after deciding it or they damage their credibility.
It is amusing the legal contortions that people make to try to justify gun bans. Speaking generally, people who support abortions and the right to privacy oppose gun ownership. Those people demanded that Roberts and Alito affirm their positions on abortion and stare decisis during their confirmation hearings. Well, now comes the time when those same people must now accept that Heller is the law of the land and they should apply the principle of stare decisis to that decision as well.
However tenuous, the decision was made, Heller is now law, and it is time to accept that.
Any chance we can leave the whole “assault weapons” thing to the 50 threads we’ve had on topic before, get back to the subject at hand, and not turn this into Generic Gun Debate #51925?
This. The sweeping victory for Obama and the Democratic party in November was helped considerably by the support of many moderates and conservatives disillusioned with eight years of Bush, not to mention the support of left-leaning gun owners like me. If they betray that confidence there will be a tremendous backlash.
No. Even if the amortized increase in cost were not Constitutionally problematic, the de facto gun registration would be.
I don’t particularly care if the cartridges I buy have extra numbers on them, and a market-driven increase in price would no more than annoy me. But when you start talking about a government-mandated burden on industry for completely stupid and ineffective new program that also involves effectively tagging me in a “potential criminals” database every time I buy a box of cartridges, suddenly we have a problem.
But why are we still talking about negligible amortized costs? The reality is that the necessary up-front expenses would likely drive most ammunition manufacturers (i.e., all of the small ones) out of business, and the cost of this vast new ammo and gun owner registration bureaucracy would be passed directly to ammunition purchasers specifically, or else to the taxpayers in general. As many others have mentioned repeatedly, this measure would strangle the trade in surplus and imported ammunition, probably make home reloading illegal, and result in an unprecedented seizure of property from millions of law-abiding Americans.
And all this for what? An ammunition tracking system trivially defeated by the very criminals it purports to target.
There are many better ways to address the crime problems in our country. The fact that so many gun control advocates relentlessly press on in an area where they are not only uncertain (to be generous) of actually accomplishing even a part of their goal, but are actively and bitterly resisted by millions of their fellow citizens is completely bewildering, and this above all else suggests the presence of an ulterior motive above and beyond concern for the public safety.
Why do you need to own a toaster?
Sorry if that sounds a bit short, but that’s sort of what your question sounded like to me.
Whack-a-Mole, I’m aware of the dissent in Heller, but I don’t think it’s a particularly effective one, nor is it likely on its merits to result in any reversal of the Heller decision in any foreseeable future. In particular, note this passage, which you quoted:
By even acknowledging the common-law right of self-defense, the dissent has neutered its own argument. The Bill of Rights is not an enumeration of exceptions to presumptive government power. Need I remind you of the words of Federalists such as Hamilton during the time of the Constitution’s framing? They objected to the inclusion of a Bill of Rights because they feared that it would one day come to be viewed much as it is today: a list of exemptions, rather than a non-comprehensive exemplar of the powers not granted to the government under the Constitution. As Hamilton himself said, the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, being exceptions to powers never given in the first place, might “afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.”
And that, unfortunately, seems to have become the case.
I’m not Airman Doors (and I don’t play him on TV…), but my take on your questions are;
1; IF a true select-fire auto is being used in a crime, it’s most likely NOT being used by it’s legal owner, as said firearms are already heavily regulated and the owners are law-abiding, responsible gun owners, willing to deal with the additional expense and background checks and the like
2; generally speaking, Autos are used at approved gun ranges, not every firing range permits full auto, my local range doesn’t, but there’s a range in Manchester, New Hampshire that does, and in fact, rents autos for shooters who want to try them, as far as targets go, most targets are the standard paper targets used by recreational shooters, but some special ranges (Knob Creekin Virginia) have extended ranges with “reactive” targets
3; For the law-abiding gun owner, a Select-Fire weapon on full auto is a thoroughly IMPRACTICAL home defense weapon for many reasons…
1; The shooter has a responsibility to know exactly where every bullet he fires ends up (Know your target, and what lies beyond it), autofire expends numerous rounds in a relatively uncontrolled manner, if you only need one or two rounds to stop a threat, why fire any more rounds than neccesary
2; autofire makes the weapon more difficult to control, due to a phenomenon known as “muzzle-rise”, if not held down, an automatic burst will cause the muzzle to rise during firing
3; Most autofire capable weapons fire high-velocity projectiles, projectiles that will pass through a relatively soft human/animal target (especially with Full Metal Jacket rounds) (Overpenetration)and retain sufficient energy to be dangerous to anything behind the target (see the Box O’ Truth I linked to above)
If one is using a firearm defensively, one needs to expend the minimum amount of rounds neccesary to stop the threat, and minimize, if not eliminate, Overpenetration, jacketed rounds generally pass through soft targets undistorted, retaining enough energy to be dangerous, hollow points are designed to expand and dump their energy into only the soft target, reducing the chances of overpenetration
Lets say you’re at home, during a home invasion, your attacker has breached the door to your bedroom, and is intent on doing you harm, your 5 year old daughter’s room is directly behind the attacker, your daughter in that room, you reach for your gun to stop the threat, do you want the gun to be loaded with…
A; A Full-Metal-Jacketed round, capable of penetrating 8+ wallboards and still retaining ballistic energy
B; a hollow-point round, designed to expand upon impact with a soft target and dump as much energy as possible into said target?
Probably true. Certainly we’d have to wait for a more favorable court at least which will be years in coming all by itself.
Stare Decisis didn’t stop them from gutting Miller. The court may be reluctant to overturn previous decisions but they can and they do.
As for Roe, while I am pro-choice, I actually agree the decision was rather tortuous. I am by no means comfortable with it as the only thing opposing the anti-choice faction as it is a rather tenuous decision.
As you noted before am I not allowed to be upset by the decision? Of course I have to live with it but that does not mean I can’t argue against it and hope for a better day. I do not see the Heller decision as remotely based in a solid foundation of law and a common sense reading of the law. Four of the nine SCOTUS justices agree with me. That may not be enough to get my way but indicates I am not alone in my opinion nor is my opinion without merit.
I don’t see Heller as directly contradicting Miller so much. Anti-gun rights activists are gleeful about Miller in a way that’s completely illogical to me.
US vs Miller ruled that weapons that have a military usefulness are protected for individual ownership under the second amendment. The reason Miller did not win is not because he had no individual right to firearm ownership, but because there was no legal representation making the case that the shotgun in question was a militarily useful weapon. There was no defense at all - Miller was unlocatable and had no counsel. The prosecution essentially said “This shotgun, [brand] [model] [serial number] has never been used in militaries or military purposes, therefore is not protected under the 2nd amendment” and the court, having no counterargument, agreed.
The bizarre thing about Miller is that it’s cited by the same people who believe in NFA 34, GCA 68, and FOPA 86. Miller essentially says that the most militarily useful weapons are the most protected, and yet people will cite Miller to say you have no right to a gun, and then talk about how evil automatic and military weapons need to be banned.
I made a thread about this a while ago, essentially asking why Miller is popularly interpreted as it is, but I’m having trouble finding it.
Do guests have the ability to search nowadays? If not, I can do some searching for you.
You keep attempting to hijack this thread about a specific issue and turn it into a generic gun debate. We’ve had dozens of those. If you can’t use the search feature to find some, I can assist you with that.
You take my hypothetical too far. I was not defending how the current proposal looks. I was merely establishing that certain government mandated things on industry may be appropriate. Of course each needs to be measured for effectiveness and a cost/benefit analysis. They should not be ignored out-of-hand though.
We have the 9th Amendment to protect us thankfully from the “enumeration” argument.
Personally I think there is a right to self defense implied in the constitution. I certainly would have no issue with such a reading. But what do you get to use for self-defense? Can you use poison? Dangerous animals? Land mines? A howitzer? What? I see nothing in a right to self defense that ipso facto makes guns ok or that guns should be exempt from any regulation.
I would like to point out that, as Justice Stevens noted, there is no indication of a right to self defense in the 2nd Amendment. Personally I think it would drop out of the 9th.
IMO, the decision is pretty clear-cut as it stands - it’s well-researched, and finally clears up an mess created by the strange decision of Miller. The Heller dissent and its supporters feel the same, but IMO I read all of the dissents, as well as all of the amicus briefs from every, last one of the submitters, and found their arguments lacking. That certainly doesn’t mean it might not be found differently by a future Supreme Court, and given that the Supreme Court can partially or complete reverse itself, and the fact that the Constitution can be changed through the Amendment process, how could I say, and where did I say, what you’ve attributed to me?
This is a bill? It struck me as a proposed bill from an interest group. I have no clue what the increase in cost would be, and I certainly don’t believe the web site would be objective on either cost or benefits.
It may also be unconstitutional on other grounds - I don’t think so, but I am far from a second amendment scholar. Someone like Eugene Volokh over at the Volokh Conspiracy would be the person to read on that side of things.
Bottom line, I don’t own any guns right now. I am considering a hand gun, and am very close to the purchase of a nasty military issue repeating rifle. A civil war issue Spencer in fact. I don’t think either of my future purchases are likely to be impacted.
If the cost per round of this is low, I’ll admit it probably isn’t a constitutional violation based on cost. It could be on other grounds, and I will leave that to those more knowledgeable than me. I jumped in because I get tired of the repeatedly held view that you can tax something but as long as you don’t ban it, the constitution is not involved.
It was a lawyerly joke about legislative interpretation. Any chance to stick the textualists is worth taking.
I found Scalia’s opinion lacking and the dissent more persuasive. I can sum it up simply but of course Steven’s did far better.
If the framers wanted to say, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” then they could have. These things were sweated over and debated ad nauseum. Adding in, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is not a rhetorical flourish. Scalia tries to handwave that away with some rhetorical flourishes of his own but I do not think it can be entirely ignored. Take that from an Originalist, Textualist or Living Document reading.
I got it from, “you don’t have to like it, but you do have to accept it.” It implies a finality. No I do not have to like it and no I do not have to accept it. I have to live with it as the current law of the land of course but that does not mean I accept it as the final word. I can and will work to change it as best I can (with admittedly meager effect but will do what I can).
Heller didn’t gut Miller; it didn’t even significantly contradict it. Have you actually read and understood what was decided in Miller? If anything, all Heller did was clear up the one question Miller left pointedly unanswered: whether the phrase “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” implies a restriction on the operative clause of the Second Amendment.
Are we or are we not discussing ammunition microstamping for identification and tracing purposes? Such a measure requires registration of ammunition to buyers in order to even begin to attempt to reap the benefits claimed. If your hypothetical situation somehow didn’t involve registration, I apologize for having missed it.
Do we? That’s all very well and good in theory, but it hasn’t prevented the frequent creation and expansion of unwarranted federal powers. Hamilton’s “colorable pretext” has already been used, reused, rinsed, recycled, washed, and hung out to dry.
You’re confusing the issues here. The right to self-defense is one of many concepts in common law. It is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, but it is a part of our Law nonetheless. You are correct in saying that the 9th encompasses it, but the 9th Amendment is not necessary for it to exist. As for what it is acceptable to use in self-defense, that depends entirely on the situation. Suffice it to say that, if self-defense is a right, then whatever level of force is necessary to compass the defense of one’s self must be accepted. But that is not a matter for the Constitution.
The Constitution constructs the federal government and grants it certain powers. It does not grant the federal government authority to deny arms to its citizens, ergo the right to keep and bear arms may not be infringed. That much is true even without the Second Amendment.
None of this implies that firearms are “exempt from any regulation,” not by a long shot. Scalia’s opinion in Heller specifically acknowledges this. But the basic right of self-defense that exists in common law, combined with the limitations of the powers granted to the government by our Constitution, form the basis for the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, and that is why the decision is, in fact, “based in a solid foundation of law,” a fact which you have denied even while claiming that you understand the Constitution and the existence of the right of self defense.
