No. I didn’t make any accusation. I asked a direct question if he understood what it meant. Obviously we miscommunicated because it wasn’t known to him at the time. That’s fine, no harm, no foul. Really, it’s not a big deal at all.
Ummm, guns are regulated.
They are regulated less than other items, but then, so are newspapers. For similar reasons.
Heller was my preferred result so it would follow that scenarios that follow Heller would also be preferable. Just because it’s an argument I personally favor doesn’t weaken the argument overall. Do you disagree with the argument itself?
It unfortunate that you don’t like the way the fair and unrestricted discourse has been proceeding. I find the appeals to emotional bullshit such as “if it saves one life” or “why does anyone need a gun” to be quite interesting. Not as interesting as the discussion on “Detailed != concise”, of course, but interesting just the same.
As I see it, one side has their say and then the other side has their say. At some point it comes down to a vote and your side just doesn’t have the votes to make your dreams possible.
You admit that guns should be banned and then you wonder why you can’t find common ground to begin a discussion about regulating guns. Shocking.
You claim that guns can’t be regulated in this country. That’s simply not true. Guns are regulated. Gun manufacturers are regulated. Gun owners are regulated (that may not be the correct word but I’m on a roll). I think you’re just not happy that gun manufacturers can’t be regulated out of business or constantly subjected to frivilous lawsuits. Sometimes, life just ain’t fair.
Meanwhile, in Kolbe v. Hogan, the Fourth Circuit Says Strict Scrutiny Applies to Second Amendment Infringing Laws. That sounds like your gun-banning quest just got a lot more difficult.
The irony is the burning.
Of course they can, and have. We banned polygamy. Some states have religious exemptions for things like vaccinations. There are debates on “Christian science” harming children whose parents won’t let them get certain treatments. Religion can’t be promoted in public schools.
Speech is regulated. Harassing, threatening, and inciting violence are typically banned. The press similarly cannot print some things, there are issues with privacy that is debated all the time.
My point is that people who are pro-gun differ from people who are pro-these other things because pro-gun people I’ve encountered generally want to remove all regulations with regards to guns while these pro-other things people typically want deregulation but are mostly in favor of some other regulations. They are not “get rid of all regulations” for their preferred pet issue. You won’t typically find someone who likes free speech who wants threats to be legal.
If you’re fine with some regulations on guns, then tell me which ones you’ll fight for and vote for. Don’t just say “I’m in favor of background checks” if you are utterly against every politician or bill that favors it. That’s completely dishonest. Give me a list of regulations you want, that you’ll argue for on these boards and/or tell your local politician to vote for with the same fervor that you use to shout down gun control advocates.
This is the only relevant part of your post because it illustrates the kind of discourse flowing from the pro-gun side. It doesn’t matter what I personally am for, I know its impossible to get. By taking the most extreme version of your opponent and pretending that is the norm and claiming you can’t debate, you shut off all avenues of compromise. I suspect you know that. I suspect you don’t care. And so it goes
I always got the impression that this was the judicial equivalent of a grandfather clause. I think it is likely to be modified in further rulings. They can’t possibly mean to say that new and innovative guns that are not in common use YET are subject to different standards than other guns. ISTM that the only real criteria is the danger they pose to the public (the NFA seems ripe for another challenge, Miller was a crap case based on crap facts with no one representing Miller).
This is still only a circuit opinion but are you finally comfortable that we will be using at least intermediate scrutiny and that intermediate scrutiny means a shit ton of gun laws around the country evaporate? Are you getting comfortable than they can not use a registry to confiscate our guns.
The restriction against machine guns may or may not survive strict scrutiny but the restrictions against SBR, SBS and suppressors would not survive intermediate scrutiny. The only reason Miller was decided the way it was is because Miller did not have effective counsel (I don’t even see an entry for anyone representing Miller, it is possible that the argument for Miller (1939) preceded the release of Johnston v Zerbst (1938) (establishing a right to counsel at the federal level).
I think they also nod approvingly at some restrictions that would not survive strict scrutiny across the board.
I think a lot of people were surprised by that. I used to think that the right was a shared right of the states and the federal government. The federal government can allow AR-15s under their power to organize arm and discipline the militia and each of the states can allow AR-15s under their power to regulate their militia. Neither had the power to ban where the other would allow.
But it turns out we were wrong.
Damn, you beat me to it.
SBR? SBS?
And suppressors are neither common nor necessary.
Its kind of like asking people to argue against abortion without resorting to the notion that the fetus is a person. Slippery slope is not a fallacy unless it is used fallaciously. And IIRC the debate you asked for wasn’t against gun control, it was against specific forms of gun control (forms that I think I supported)
Gun rights folks feel the same way. the only thing holding some of us back is the crazy shit spit out by folks on the gun control side.
Are you making the claim that guns aren’t regulated? If gun control folks really see guns as unregulated then gun rights folks are justifiably concerned about what the gun control folks want to do.
I think they are trying to prevent the conversation from moving backwards.
Clearly, you didn’t understand. You have already taken that most extreme position in this, and other, threads. So, there is no point in debating it with you. You’ve made it abundantly clear, over and over, that your end goal is one that we find utterly unacceptable. Better to expend one’s energies debating with people whose minds can be changed.
The NRA supports keeping guns FFLS from selling guns to felons.
Wait, are you saying some regulations or MORE regulation. I know plenty of people who are in favor of SOME regulations that think we should still have fewer regulation.
WTF!!?!?!? So if I agree with a politician on ONE issue I have to vote for him, even if I disagree with him on everything else?
Lets say I support banning very late term abortions, does that mean I have to vote for pro-life candidates over pro-choice candidates?
I happen to support licensing and registration and most of the candidates I vote for support licensing and registration but I usually vote for them IN SPITE OF their stance on gun control because they usually want a shit ton more regulation than mere licensing and registration. Hell I intend to vote for Hillary despite her retarded positions on gun control.
But if those are in fact your beliefs, there is non pretending necessary. Do you think you are fucking unique in your views? More than a handful of the gun control folks on this site are in favor of MUCH MUCH more than background checks. If someone has argued that we should have background checks and then stop there, I have overlooked their posts, can you point them out to me? Because almost everyone on the gun control side that supports background checks seem to view background checks as a good start not a good finish.
SBR=Short barreled rifle
SBS=short barreled shotgun
There is no common or necessary element to intermediate scrutiny.
The restriction against suppressors don’t make a lot of sense to me. I think the restriction is based on some myth that suppressors make guns into silent killing devices. The only guns I have seen “silenced” with an suppressor are about as powerful as a crossbow.
Not sure where you got the idea that I wasn’t comfortable that intermediate scrutiny was the floor. Of course it is - it says so in Heller. And yes, many existing laws if challenged will fail under intermediate scrutiny, and even more would under strict. But look what happened here, at the district level, they applied intermediate scrutiny and the bans didn’t fail - and what’s more, they simply decided that some things aren’t covered by the 2nd at all - like magazines. Coming to a erroneous result from the first prong of the test obviates the scrutiny analysis all together. That’s why we have appellate courts, but even then it’s a crapshoot. We’ll see how the en banc petition goes - I wouldn’t be surprised at anything from that.
I think the nature of the implication should control the level of scrutiny. I would not simply say it will be intermediate, or strict, and there is no reason to think it would always be one or the other. I just know it won’t be rational basis.
So no, I will never be comfortable that a registry can’t be used to confiscate. But that’s not the point of this thread at all. This is a legal discussion about the mechanics of 2nd amendment analysis. Confiscation, registries, those are not germane.
A SBR and SBS would be very effective for self defense in a home, or any tight quartered place. Here’s the ‘thumb in the wind’ test I do mentally - what do police use? If they use it, I should be able to use it. SBR and SBS fall into this category. They clearly have militia usefulness as well so it’s hard to see how they wouldn’t be covered under the 2nd.
As for suppressors, I think they are more common than you think. There is a safety issue associated with them in that they can help prevent hearing loss, and would be great in the context of hunting, and would make practice more pleasant. H.R.3799 was recently introduced in the House, the Hearing Protection Act of 2015 that would removed suppressors from the NFA. What may fail through legislation will be pushed through litigation eventually.
But again, not germane to this thread.
Short barreled rifle good for home defense? You really want a gun that will penetrate sheetrock walls with ease to kill a family member on the other side?
Saw-off shotgun- sure. But really do you need a barrel that short?
Every suppressor I have seen is on those weird Preppers and Militia groups.
I’m generally anti-gun control so I’ll take a swing at this question. I support and would vote for politicians or laws; banning private ownership of automatic arms, large caliber arms (over 30 mm), explosive, flammable, chemical or biologic arms.
Does this meet your criteria of being fine with regulations on guns?
That being said I’ve had fun with grande launchers, automatic weapons and flame throwers but I think those categories are worth giving up so I’d also be willing to listen to ways to regulate rather than ban those weapons.
My grey area is prohibiting people who are dangerous or mentally unstable from owning weapons. It is difficult to tell who the dangerous or unstable are in advance and I would be leery of any laws that tried to do that but if it was possible I would support those as well. I don’t think background checks are overly useful going forward since people are going to be getting into making more and more of their own things. Once anyone is capable of making a weapon a background check on purchase doesn’t really mean much. A registry of ownership is another area I’d consider supporting but I’d need lots of convincing that there was no slope down from there.
First - need has nothing to do with it. That shifts the burden for an enumerated right.
Second - Everything that will penetrate a human will penetrate sheetrock. The barrel length is irrelevant in that regard, and a shorter barrel could be easier to maneuver in close quarters. Why do you think police use them?
In most states, suppressors are legal for civilian use, and for hunting. They just have to go through the NFA process. From here:
Here is information about their legality. They are legal in 41 states, though the process is a bit onerous.
Yes, but a rifle round has far more penetration that a handgun or shotgun shot does. Why would you need a rifle for home defense? What can a rifle do that a handgun or shotgun can not? As you pointed out, home defense is close quarters so the longer range of a rifle is not a advantage.