We won’t know until we hear the actual decision; my guess would be that the Supremes want to uphold an individual right to have guns for self-defense, but don’t want to declare that the government can’t regulate guns at all. My money is on a decision where they say that DC can have reasonable requirements (registration, carry permits), but can’t use those to impose defacto bans. Sort of “shall issue” at the federal level. Anyone’s guess whether they’ll try to incorporate the 2nd or not.
Emphasis mine:
I don’t believe the issue of carrying in public wll be part of the decision.
It depends on just how sweeping the rulling is; if the Supremes decide they have to address the question of “bearing” arms in a civilian context.
This isn’t good enough?
Sailboat
Nope. Not unless, that is, you’re of the “government can’t do anything at all that the Constitution doesn’t specifically permit it to do” school of thought that has carried no weight in reality since, well, ever.
Except, of course, that that is the ENTIRE POINT of the document, in philosophy and in writing.
Which makes it so much more amusing that we argue over little details of the Constitution when we pretty much ignore the document completely in practice.
They’d have to go far beyond what was brought up at the hearing.
For one thing, what kind of “bearing” is covered? Openly? Concealed?
Both?
“Sweeping” isn’t even a strong enough word. Such a ruling making public carry would affect every state in the union in one way or another. Where as most allow one form or the other (or both) all have some form of regulation on it.
What Justice was it that brought up the “not in the market place” rule of colonial times?
Haven’t you been emphatically insisting that your argument here is based on what the law is, as decided by various SCUSA rulings? The above, however, is based entirely on your opinion of what the law should in accordance with how you assess the intentions of the authors of the Bill of Rights.
Please forgive me. While I have tried to read most of the thread I have skimmed much of it looking for the answer to my question. I haven’t found it clearly expressed and if it has been clearly answered already I am sorry.
If the Supremes do indeed interpret that the right is an individual right in order to be prepared to be part of a militia at a moments notice, and if they interpret well regulated to mean well trained, then what consistently follows?
Seems that assault weapons of any sort should allowable but that mandatory safe storage would also be considered appropriate. Required training? Would that follow under “well regulated”? Usefulness for home defense seems to not have been the intent so preventing that usage would not be a consideration in what was reasonable restriction … if any state restriction was to be allowable at all. They seem to state that some reasonable restrictions would be allowable.
Help me out here. Not what should be, but what those interpretations would consistently imply.
Thanks.
Assault weapons, huh? What about common hunting rifles?
Because that’s all “assault weapons” are. Common hunting rifles on stocks that look spooky to Sarah Brady and her ilk. Otherwise they function in the exact same way.
Take the Ruger Mini-14 Ranch Rifle. Just a common hunting gun.
But put it on a different stock it becomes a scary “assault weapon”. But does nothing different in how it operates.
So if “assault weapons” are then subject to any regulation, why not common hunting rifles?
pkbites: Correct, but wrong argument.
To clarify, “assault weapon” is a made up term used by the media and by gun control advocates to ban scary-looking guns which have little to no functional difference compared to common socially acceptable rifles.
But I think DSeid was hinting that it would be logical to allow assault rifles (which is indeed a term that seperates weapons based on functionality and not cosmetics). I’ve always argued that the most protected weapon under the second amendment would be the common infantry rifle of the times, so yes, logically, if any firearm would be protected, it would today by the M16/M4 and other assault rifles.
Which Gura argued against. He was deceptive and ultimately this is one of the things I’m unhappy with. He said that they weren’t “in common use” - of course they aren’t, they’ve been banned from manufacture or importation into the civilian market since 1986 and strictly controlled since 1934.
This is one issue where Gura did a disservice to arguing gun rights in favor of winning his client’s immediate case.
I could see an ANTI-gun state having to go down this path:
-
The only allowed guns are those with militia usage. They MIGHT try to play with this to limit the list, but I don’t see it working well for them.
-
To possess a firearm you must register with a recognized militia group. The group must have a standard meeting and training regimine to ensure that they are truly well-regulated. Membership would be limited based on felony records, mental health, etc. However, ADA considerations would still apply! They might try to force it to be a state militia only, not sure though.
-
You might be asked to come out once per year to show your skill level. Some places do that with concealed carry - you have to put a few rounds onto the target each year to keep your license current. You would be qualified with certain weapons, and you are only allowed to own those particular weapons.
SenorBeef understands my question. That interpretation should most protect those weapons whose function is best defined as a potential military application, and least those which do not. It would have relatively less application for weapons designed for other uses.
I don’t get Algher’s point on regulating the militia … I thought that well regulated meant well trained - not legally regulated. Mandating training may follow but not mandating a regulated militia.
If I have it right.
And again, this is merely to understand what such an interpretation would logically and consistently imply.
Sure - but how do you test to see if they are well trained? Again - I am trying to write a law here for an anti-gun state that might pass Constitutional muster if the final judgement from the Court is where we all predict.
Since many here argue that well-regulated means well trained & equipped, I could see an anti-gun state wanting to test that by requiring you to PROVE that you are well trained if you want your “arms license.” They might do that through certified militia groups.
Then what you meant to say in your previous post was full-auto machine guns, not “assault weapons”, correct?
This - if you should find any limitation imposed by the militia clause - would be the most logical one.
But practically, it doesn’t mean much - most guns find some sort of military usefulness. Handguns are used for self defense. Shotguns are used in close quarters. Guns very similar to hunting rifles are used for sharpshooting.
“Well functioning” might be the best synonym. I remember reading an article by a linguist who gave the example that since clocks of the era tended to be finnicky and lose their time, a clockmaker would “regulate” a clock so that it was in proper order. In that sense, a well regulated clock would be one that was functioning well and correctly.
He clearly means weapons capable of fully automatic fire. He didn’t understand what the term “assault weapon” represents - which is exactly the goal of the media and gun control advocates.
“Full auto machine guns” is also an incorrect way to refer to what he means - a machine gun is this, not this
It is. Unfortunately they’re rather successful at it. I’m waiting for “someone” to come here and start blathering how the Mini-14 in my example is somehow more dangerous with a pistol grip on it.
Yes, that’s my own opinion, and I think it’s clear enough that it’s distinct from the opinion that matters.
It is, however, an opinion drawn by *reading * the text they wrote instead of *dismissing * it.
I claim no expertise on guns. And I have no interest in entering into a gun control debate. Been there and done that. No thank you. My meaning was guns with a clear primary function to be effective and efficient militarily. Whichever they are. As SenorBeef understood despite my ignorance over proper terminology, ones that have that as their primary function. Those should under such an interpretation enjoy the greatest degree of protection for individual ownership and the least degree of regulation. And the more primary that usage, the more effective it is in that usage, the more protected it should be.
It seems that some weapons are currently not allowed, precisely because they are such effective military weapons, yet under that interpretation maintaining their illegality will require some “intellectual flexibility”, shall we say. Does the interpretation being suggested by the court imply that the State can mandate that which constitutes “well-regulated” (i.e. adequately trained)? Would that allow restriction of such weapons only to those with such training as the government judged adequate, be it by testing or by membership in an “approved” militia? It does not seem in keeping with the spirit of the interpretation, particularly for guns with effective military use. And goes against the interpretation offered by SenorBeef that it means only that the weapons work well.
I understand the logic that the framers’ interest was in having a populus well armed with working weapons of military capability that they knew how to use to be able to form ad hoc militias at a moments notice to protect the state from tyranny. And the current court seems to be taking that tact as the original intent. If so what follows logically and consistently?
My underinformed take is that weapons currently disallowed because they are effective military weapons become allowed.
OTOH mandating storage and trigger locks becomes easier as they fail to significantly limit the utility of these weapons for militia uses.
I’m not sure what the implication would be for proof of competency regulations.
I suspect that some of you understand the implications better than I do and can tell me if I have it right or not.
This is not a question of good or bad although I would wonder how the public at large would react to those events occurring.
He’s a bit defensive because there’s a concerted effort to confuse the public about the term “assault weapon” - they created the term so that it sounds like “assault rifle”, which is a term that actually has meaning. “Assault weapon” simply means a scary looking weapon that’s functionally no different from other weapons that are more conventional looking. Often, people using the term are calling for a ban.
I realized you weren’t trying to start an argument but rather better understand the situation, so I tried to clear that up.
We’re in agreement on this point.
Essentially, yes. Even many gun advocates are uncomfortable with what the second amendment truly means.
The court decision isn’t out yet, we’ve only been discussing the oral arguments in which justices pose questions to the parties. And when I was explaining the term well regulated, I wasn’t referring to the guns, I was referring to the militia. “Well regulated” may indeed imply or include well trained, but my understanding is that it’s generally used in a broader sense of well functioning.
The scope of the court case only covers DC’s ban. My understanding is that anything they say about fully automatic weapons is dicta - non-binding. However, depending on what they say, it may give grounds to challenge the laws about fully automatic weapons.