A long gun, whether shotgun or rifle or pistol-caliber carbine, is easier to score hits with than a pistol. A short-barreled 9 mm carbine reduces the risk of stray rounds or overpenetrating rounds by helping ensure your bullets go exactly where you want them to go and you, therefore, fire fewer of them. A 9 mm pistol is harder to score hits with, so you may well end up firing more rounds to compensate for misses with accordingly greater chances of hitting someone or something you don’t want to. People who shoot other people for a living use long guns for a reason.
Not in close quarters.
No more than a 9mm handgun, since you’re not gonna stop and take careful aim.
Indeed they do, but not short barreled ones, and they do it at as long range as possible.
Yes, in close quarters. I really don’t want to turn this into a dickwaving contest, but do you have any actual training in CQB? Military, maybe, or police? Or perhaps you took a classes at someplace like Gunsite? Or your gun club had one of the well-regarded teachers like Larry Vickers come in to teach a weekend course? If you’ve had some actual traing, ideally force-on-force, I’d be interested to hear your rationale on close quarters. If you’re just another guy who owns a few guns, watches movies, and plays videogames…
Umm no. That’s just wrong.
People who shoot other people for a living use long guns. When they need to shoot other people at close quarters, such as inside a house, they use short barreled long arms: shot guns, sub machine guns and carbines.
You claim that it is harder to score hits with a long arm than a pistol at close quarters. Can you therefore explain why SWAT and SAS teams *primarily *use long arms when operating inside buildings and only carry sidearms as an emergency backup?
Well, let us see you gots Weapons and Equipment of the Sas, which shows a long barreled SMG type weapon and a shotgun with what appears to be a legal USA length bbl.
But the SAS is a special unit:
How about this page:
etc.
In any case, you’re not gonna be armed with a full auto 9mm SMG.
My experience has been that even at close ranges it is a lot harder to hit something with a pistol than a rifle. Even with little to no time to gain a sight picture, or even shooting from the hip, it seems a lot easier to hit something with a longer barreled gun than a shorter barreled one. I think it has something to do with sight radius.
Back on topic. Do we know when the district court is likely to reevaluate their prior ruling?
I was six years in the military with extensive MOUT (military operations urban terrain) training. Shorter barrels and weapons are generally preferred they allow you to acquire a target faster and less likely to get blocked by close quarters obstacles. It decreases long range accuracy slightly but you cares when you’re indoors. I was never given a shotgun to clear a room. I would much prefer a rifle over a pistol for home defense.
OK, this is a bit confusing. Shorter barrels are preferred but you would prefer a rifle over a pistol for home defense? Or are you saying that people prefer short barreled rifles and bullpups (like the Tavor)?
I’ll offer my opinion on “dangerous and unusual” . . . A little long because of extensive (but necessary IMO) quotes.
In federal law I see “dangerous and unusual” as being derived from Miller although it isn’t expressly stated it is certainly used in Miller. “Dangerous and unusual” is explained in the case that Miller relies upon to decide if the sawed-off shotgun at issue was a protected type of arm. That case is really a primer for reading the poorly written Miller.
Miller effectively upheld the NFA-34’s transfer tax and affixed stamp requirement for shotguns with a barrel length under 18 inches.
Since there was no appearance for appellees, the Court said:
[INDENT]"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158. "
[/INDENT]
Aymette v. State of Tennessee (examining the 1840 racially qualified Arkansas RKBA provision) at page 158 is of value to quote now – we see why *Miller *cited it as the basis for the Court’s reasoning – but I will continue past 158 for reasons that will become obvious (paragraph breaks added):
[INDENT]"The section under consideration, in our bill of rights, was adopted (p.158) in reference to these historical facts, and in this point of view its language is most appropriate and expressive. Its words are, “The free white men of this state have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defence.” It, to be sure, asserts the right much more broadly than the statute of first William and Mary. For the right there asserted, is subject to the disabilities contained in the act of Charles the second. There lords and esquires, and their sons and persons, whose yearly income from land amounted to one hundred pounds, were of suitable condition to keep arms. But, with us, every free white man is of suitable condition; and, therefore, every free white man may keep and bear arms.
But to keep and bear arms for what? If the history of the subject had left in doubt the object for which the right is secured, the words that are employed must completely remove that doubt. It is declared that they may keep and bear arms for their common defence.
The word “common” here used, means according to Webster; 1. Belonging equally to more than one, or to many indefinitely. 2. Belonging to the public. 3. General. 4. Universal. 5. Public. The object then, for which the right of keeping and bearing arms is secured, is the defence of the public.
The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution. The words “bear arms” too, have reference to their military use, and were not employed to mean wearing them about the person as part of the dress.
As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority.
They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.
A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an “arm” in the figurative (p.159) use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence.
The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself.
Suppose it were to suit the whim of a set of ruffians to enter the theatre in the midst of the performance, with drawn swords, guns and fixed bayonets, or to enter the church in the same manner, during service, to the terror of the audience; and this were to become habitual; can it be, that it would be beyond the power of the legislature to pass laws to remedy such an evil? Surely not. If the use of arms in this way cannot be prohibited, it is in the power of fifty armed ruffians to break up the churches, and all other public assemblages, where they might lawfully come, and there would be no remedy.
But we are perfectly satisfied that a remedy might be applied. The convention in securing the public political right in question, did not intend to take away from the legislature all power of regulating the social relations of the citizens upon this subject. It is true, it is somewhat difficult to draw the precise line where legislation must cease, and where the political right begins, but it is not difficult to state a case where the right of legislation (p.160)would exist.
The citizens have the unqualified right to keep the weapon, it being of the character before described, as being intended by this provision. But the right to bear arms is not of that unqualified character. The citizens may bear them for the common defence; but it does not follow, that they may be borne by an individual, merely to terrify the people, or for purposes of private assassination. And as the manner in which they are worn, and circumstances under which they are carried, indicate to every man, the purpose of the wearer, the legislature may prohibit such manner of wearing as would never be resorted to by persons engaged in the common defence."[/INDENT]
To me, it is clear that “dangerous and unusual [not usual in civilized warfare]” is a description that allows the government to argue it should be afforded a power to restrict public use (NOT SIMPLE POSSESSION) of a type of arm.
To me, that final determination can only be arrived at after the court has exhausted ALL the protection criteria.
That means, if the arm in question is of a type that is usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and/or its use could contribute to the common defense and/or it is of a type in common use by the citizen, ANY POWER CLAIMED BY GOVERNMENT TO RESTRICT ITS USE MUST BE REPELLED (OR INVALIDATED IF ALREADY IN FORCE).
To me, “dangerous and unusual” can not be a legitimate starting place to argue for gun control; it is the determination arrived at after the arm fails ALL the protection criteria. Only then can the government begin its pleadings that a power to restrict that arm’s use should be granted to it.
In other words, an arm simply can not legally be considered “dangerous and unusual” if it is, (quoting Miller), “within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense” or that it is, “of the kind in common use at the time”.
In Heller SCOTUS only used “in common use” to invalidate the DC statutes. I would expect that “in common use” ***and ***the other criteria would be employed if an “assault weapon” ban comes before them. It is obvious how the Court should rule . . .
I would welcome any discussion on Aymette’s specifics, it is an excellent case to examine for guidance and it obviously has the endorsement of SCOTUS.
I agree. Dangerous and unusual should be the second prong of the test that is applied after we determine that the “arm” in question is not the sort of arm that someone might show up with during a militia muster (although I think that anything that falls outside that category might automatically be unusual).
The Heller pivot to “in common use” seems to create a bootstrap problem where simply having a lot of some type of weapon in circulation gives it more constitutional protection than new and innovative weapons. I can’t see how that becomes a plausible grounds for rejecting constitutional protection in corner cases.
I think a more sensible approach to the dangerous and unusual (or in common use) standard) is to help us establish the level of scrutiny we apply. Right now it seems like we may be heading for a place where outright bans are subject to strict scrutiny and mere regulation is subject to intermediate scrutiny. I would suggest that the sliding scale of scrutiny should be affected not only by the nature of the challenged law but also the nature of the item being regulated or banned. Perhaps it is more constitutionally acceptable to ban dangerous and unusual weapons while we could apply strict scrutiny to regulations of common weapons.
I have long wondered (since heller) what the fate of the NFA would be. The NFA prohibits weapons that are clearly used by our military. If outright bans are subject to strict scrutiny, how do you justify the near total ban on machine guns?
I’ve never seen != in a math class; they prefer ≠. However, != is a logical operator in many programming languages. Equality operators - test if two objects are equal or not equal - C# reference | Microsoft Learn
I don’t think it was intended as a “gotcha” of any sort. Remember, the Internet was initially a playground for us nerds.
The NFA would be more easily justifiable if it was an outright ban. On the face of it, it was a naked attempt to make sure that machine guns etc. remained legally available to the wealthy and connected while prohibiting legal possession to certain undesirable elements. The taxes, at the time the NFA was passed, were deliberately set high enough that they were effectively a barrier to ownership for any but the wealthy. Likewise, the necessity of having local LE sign off on the paper work helped guarantee that only the “right” people would be able to legally possess such weapons even if they had the cash to cover the cost of the weapons + taxes. Closing the registry in 1986 virtually guaranteed that machine guns would become rich men’s toys.
I see what you are saying. Any concerns about machine guns only seem to apply if those machine guns are not owned by rich people. But isn’t there at least an argument that limiting the number of machine guns to the number in existence when the registry was closed might be consistent with some of those concerns?
I happen to think that the ban on short barrel rifles and shotguns are somewhere between stupid and unconstitutional. With the popularity of bullpup rifles like the Tavor and bullpup shotguns like the Keltec KSG, the only difference seems to be cost.
I think the restriction against suppressors is just flat out stupid and a product of people watching too many spy movies.
Does Miller vs United States apply here, where SCOTUS set the bar at “normal and necessary” arms for the well-regulated militia? They outlawed sawed off shotguns in that ruling, but you know it ain’t much of a militia without automatic AR-15’s with high capacity magazines.
Are “well regulated militias” completely moribund now the USA keeps a standing military?
Miller was always a bit muddled (frankly, Heller could use a dose of clarity as well).
The impression I got from Miller was that there was some connection between a gun’s utility in a militia and its protection under the second amendment. Generations of lawyer thought that might mean that the militia connection implied a state right rather than an individual right. Now it seems like it is an individual right to own a firearm for self defense AND a firearm that they might have bring with them to a militia muster. ISTM that this puts the entire NFA in question.
I used to think that both the states and the federal government had the ability to set a floor on the second amendment right below which the other could not infringe (under the state’s right to regulate their militia and the federal right to discipline them). It is pretty clear now that I was wrong and this case seems to stand for the proposition that a law that bans a commonly available firearm (even banning its possession in the home), is going to have to withstand strict scrutiny.
I’ve never heard any cogent reason given for the restrictions on suppressors. Some years back, a Pennsylvania Game Warden told me that the restrictions were aimed at making it more difficult for poachers to obtain and use them. Whether that is true, a folk tradition that gets passed along in Game Warden training, or him just talking out of his behind, I can’t say. It makes marginally more sense than some of the other justifications I’ve heard.
It’s probably (perversely) because of the lack of involvement of gun users in drafting gun control legislation. The NRA (and to an even greater extent GOA and others) take absolutist positions on gun control, so there is little NRA involvement in drafting such legislation. Either there are enough anti-gun votes to pass it or there aren’t. I expect that’s why there was such a random assortment of features outlawed in the Brady Bill too.
And of course from your vantage point any gun control that is promoted is legitimate, anti-gun groups owe no honest assessment and recognition of the constitutionality of their proposals and much more important for fostering goodwill, never show any support for rolling back unconstitutional law.
Gun control advocacy becomes purely political and the only factor to determine legitimacy is having the votes to pass it . . . Every law is a, “step in the right direction” even if it is ineffective; whether the law is constitutional and sadly, whether it will actually impact the criminal misuse of guns, is no longer any concern.
You are absolutist in your support and defense for any and all gun control to the point where you are forced to argue invalid legal theories. Many on your side are realizing the futility of that path, so now we hear that the Constitution is just a rusty old set of shackles we need to cast off and leave behind.
So, we see, once the legal argument has been abandoned (which is the meat of the pro-gun argument against your proposals) there is no possibility for any “common ground” between us because your side has eliminated from consideration the only thing that really matters.
So, what you are left with is logically bankrupt emotional argument and the nurturing of utter contempt if not hate for anyone who opposes your policy positions. Those who disagree with you are characterized as heartlessly stepping over piles of dead children just so they can play with their penis substitutes.
When anti-gunner’s “debate” over gun control focuses on dehumanizing characterizations of pro-gun people and the demonization of the organizations like the NRA and GOA who defend their rights, it makes it impossible to come together let alone work together.
.
I think you may have quoted the wrong post.
They banned suppressors (silencers) for the same reason they banned short barreled shotguns (sawed off shotguns). Because they seemed dodgy in some way.
Suppressors made your sniper rifle go thwip thwip, or worse, it made your assassin’s pistol go thwip thwip so you could kill someone in a crowded room and no one would even realize it until the pool of bloods started to form around the corpse. Don’t underestimate the ignorance surrounding guns. Even gun people (particularly hunters) don’t necessarily know that much about guns outside of those that are used for hunting. The ignorance of hunters surrounding AR-15s has been particularly easy for gun prohibitionists to exploit. Many hunters prefer bolt action rifles because bolt action rifles are more accurate than semi-automatic (I don’t know ANY hunters who are accurate enough for this difference to make a difference at anything shorter than maybe 300 yards, which probably means that most of them would be better off with semi-automatic rifles).
Sawed off shotguns became associated with liquor store robberies (primarily because shotguns were cheap compared to pistols and sawing off the barrel (and usually the stock as well) made them concealable). The notion that this concealability is a critical difference is belied by the use of high caliber handguns and bullpup shotguns and rifles. I would probably pick a bullpup rifle or shotgun over a short barreled version in most situations.