Limitations on Personal Armament

[Demise]

*Originally posted by SPOOFE *
"Area effect" usually has connotations of something more than “personal weapon”, but that’s just me.

I’m doing a bad job of describing what I mean by “personal in scale”. When you use a grenade, you are using it against someone you can see and could hear you if you shouted at them, for example. A grenade doesn’t destroy buildings or create new, interesting holes in the landscape. A person wielding a grenade can’t rain down death upon a football field-sized area while sitting in a bunker. You don’t use a small LCD or CRT screen to target somebody with a grenade. It is a weapon that is used by one person against other people that are literally a stones throw away. Thus: “personal in scale”. If you don’t agree, that’s fine. I’m not arguing that I should be able to carry a brace of grenades around, I really don’t care.

And that’s all I have to say about that.

**I have no qualms about giving up grenades or automatic weapons… in return, we get to keep our handguns, rifles, and shotguns. That’s the compromise, right?

Right?**

I’ll make that compromise.

Oh wait, I think I already did…

…

*Originally posted by ExTank *
I was going to address your “4 elements of the 2nd. Ad.” but Demise already dropped that one through the hoop without touching the rim from half-court for three.

Wooo! He shoots, he scores!

Thanks Tank, I’m glad I’m making sense to someone.

As a side note to all involved, let’s please, please, please not go off on a tangent here about how effective or ineffective armed civilians would be against a tyrannical government’s (I really do grin every time I write that, btw) military might. It’s been discussed in other threads to ridiculous lengths. The point is, being armed with guns would make a militia much more effective than one armed with, say, pointy sticks and bad attitudes.

[tracer]

ExTank wrote:

Although, under the “level playing field” interpretation of what armaments civillians may possess, the right to grenade launchers, RPGs, SAMs and such would be unrestricted.

Stand up for your Dungeons & Dragons rights!!

[Dave_Stewart]

Spoofe

Pretty close. I’m saying that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment because it makes the existence of the militia possible, which is necessary to the security of a free state.

So, in your numbering scheme, #4 applies to #1, #2, and #3 equally. Because #3 is guaranteed, #1 can exist, which leads to #2 as a result.

Comprehende. You’re working in reverse to me, I think, where I say that the “security of … state” is the reason, you say its the result. What you’ve said makes sense: IMHO its an equally valid interpretation.

I’ve stated my view on what “Arms” are guaranteed by the 2nd. IMHO, it means that things such as fully-automatic rifles should be legal to own without the current restrictions and maybe grenades as well, but not weapons that are less personal in scale.

I don’t get this, but I’ll move along to what Ex-Tank has to say and deal with it there:

What logic are you using? Are you implying that under the individual rights interpretation of the 2nd. people are limited to the arms capable of being produced with late 18th century technology? My statement:
quote:

The basic distinction is that individual weapons can be carried and operated by an individual.

is fairly consistent with 99.999999+% of the available selection of firearms at 99.999999+% of the gun stores in America.

The stock sold by gun stores is not an authority giving justification to your position, but that’s not really what you’re getting at. You’re missing my point - I was saying that you *may as well *limit it to muskets by the rationale being applied. If you say “only individually wielded weapons”, you’re applying the same logic as “only muskets”. Things have moved on from the time of muskets, and things have moved on from the time of handheld weapons.

I didn’t arbitrarily draw the inference to individually wielded weapons from the amendment; the passage “…keep and bear arms…” implies arms that can be borne (by an individual). That would indeed have been muskets at the time of the Constitution’s writing. But no legal precedent has upheld that the internet or the television industry are exempt from 1st Amendment protection just because they weren’t invented at the time of the writing of the Constitution! Just the opposite, in fact. It has even been extended to the hate speech of Neo-Nazis, reprehesible as their message is to 99.999999+% of Americans. And that wasn’t around at the time of the writing of the Constitution, either.

By extension, it can can be construed to apply to the 2nd. as well. To imply that somehow firearms available to citizens be frozen at late 18th century technology is ludicrous

I agree! But I don’t agree with your distinction between “arms” and “armament”. There is none, because otherwise you can’t fulfil the purpose of the amendment, which is to prevent tyrannous forces overthrowing the freedom of the state.

Although, under the “level playing field” interpretation of what armaments civillians may possess, the right to grenade launchers, RPGs, SAMs and such would be unrestricted.

…which is what I’m saying you have.

I note no one has actually commented on my proposal that you bury or hid or otherwise make safe for the purposes of immediacy your arms, awaiting tyranny.

Spoofe’s plea:

As a side note to all involved, let’s please, please, please not go off on a tangent here about how effective or ineffective armed civilians would be against a tyrannical government’s (I really do grin every time I write that, btw) military might. It’s been discussed in other threads to ridiculous lengths. The point is, being armed with guns would make a militia much more effective than one armed with, say, pointy sticks and bad attitudes.

…kind of goes back to my point, that in order to give effect to the purpose of the amendment, you should be entitled to be able to resist government military might.

[SPOOFE]

I’m sure you mean *Demise, don’tcha, Dave?

[Dave_Stewart]

Oops, sorry about that!

[ExTank]

Dave: there is no difference between “arms” (using the classical definition understood and employed by the authors of the Constitution) and “armaments”; there is no difference between “ordnance” and “armaments”. Both “arms” and “ordnance” are examples of “armaments”.

There are differences between “arms” and “ordnance”

A brief description of our National Guard system:

The National Guard, by federal law, is considered the “organized militias” of the various states, and is typically under the control of the state’s governor (supreme executive), with operational command vested in a professional military officer.

The National guard is subject to call-up by either the state or federal governments in times of emergency, such as disaster relief or to augument regular military forces in time of hostilities.

We’ve been very fortunate as a country in presenting a fairly unified front towards the world and having a largely harmonious history, speaking in a intra- and interstate manner. The Civil War, or course, being the notable exception.

There was never a guarantee of such a situation, nor is there one of a continuation of this happy state of affairs. This American, and I’m sure the overwhelmingly vast majority of my fellow citizens, would hope so, but hope alone is not sufficient.

Just social policy, benevolent and equitible application of law, and an educated populace are probably the surest, bestest guarantee against the sort of social spiral into either anarchy or tyranny.

But, and speaking strictly for myself here, a few dozen million armed citizens, also recognized under federal law as the "unorganized militia, even if armed just with hunting rifles or semi-auto variants of military rifles, doesn’t hurt things any either.

In the undesirable event of ever having to utilize both the organized and unorganized militias (the National Guard and a mass of armed citizens) to oppose a tyrannical federal government, the National Guard, which is outfitted with Tanks, Artillery, Helicopter Gunships and Jet Fighters (ordnance) will bear the brunt of the fight; the armed citizenry would be expected to engage in a guerilla-mode of warfare, acting as spies (reconnaissance), saboteurs (bridges, railways, telecommunications links, etc.,) and possibly as snipers against the federal military’s command structure.

And forget Red Dawn scenarios of camouflaged rebels running throught he woods; the average guerilla could pass you on the sidewalk without drawing a second glance, in much the same way that the VC guerillas were able to effectively hide amongst the general population of the Vietnamese people.

OTOH:

The aquisition of firearms by criminally disposed individuals or groups is certainly an alarming prospect; the possibility that further restrictions may be warranted to stem this flow of weapons is worthy of consideration.

But the policies and legislation offered up for consideration by pro-control advocates and groups has been largely rejected not only by pro-gun groups but also by the majority of state legislatures and our Congress as being restrictive against law-abiding citizens while not truly or effectively addressing the issues of criminal misuse of firearms or of aiding law enforcement in stemming the illegal flow of firearms to the designated undesirable individuals and groups.

The pro-gun groups also hurt themselves and their public image with singularly myopic solutions (“More Guns, Less Crime!”) to the problem of firearm proliferation amongst the criminally minded.

The aforementioned cultural and political schism over this issue has led to too much distrust, too much rancor, for there to be any meaningful dialogue on the issue at the national level.

Just look at how contentious the issue is here in GD; a not altogether inaccurate microcosm of the larger debate.

[Dave_Stewart]

ExTank:

In the undesirable event of ever having to utilize both the organized and unorganized militias (the National Guard and a mass of armed citizens) to oppose a tyrannical federal government, the National Guard, which is outfitted with Tanks, Artillery, Helicopter Gunships and Jet Fighters (ordnance) will bear the brunt of the fight; the armed citizenry would be expected to engage in a guerilla-mode of warfare, acting as spies (reconnaissance), saboteurs (bridges, railways, telecommunications links, etc.,) and possibly as snipers against the federal military’s command structure.

But…where do you get this from???

[ExTank]

Dave: I believe that it stands to reason; feel free to show otherwise.

In the (admittedly) unlikely event described in my previous post (which you exerpted):[list=A]
[li] The National Guard has the ordnance; tanks, gunships, mechanized infantry and artillery. As well: Air Defense units equipped with Stingers, Communications and Electronics Countermeasures Signals Units. And: Maintenance, Transport, Medical and Engineering units.[/li]
[li]The National Guard has the M-16s and Handguns to equip their units; not the entire mass of citizenry, or whoever may feel the need or desire to volunteer.[/li]
[li]Any civillian volunteers could not effectively replace “specialized skills” units (Signal, Medical, Engineers, etc.) and would therefore form the bulk of either a reserve pool of raw personnel, or form localized cells of resistance.[/li]
[li]While probably more effective as intelligence gathering assets, such local cells, if they take any direct action, would of necessity have to provide their own arms.[/List=A][/li]
The types of weapons that I might expect to see in just such an event (regardless of probability) are large caliber revolvers, semi-auto handguns (9mm and up), carbines (light rifles, typically 5.56mm/.223), “assault rifles” (semi-auto variants of military rifles) and various high-powered hunting rifles, with scopes.

Some few may bring fully automatic weapons, either legal or otherwise. But in the scenario I describe (again: I consider it unlikely) I seriously doubt that anyone would quibble about the federal laws of the federal government that they are fighting.

If you are looking for specific Constitutional or historical precedent, good luck. As xeno said quite clearly in that most excellent post at the bottom of page 1, such specificity precludes the flexibility of our government and society to adapt as we find it necessary to do so.

As you essentially said (and I essentially agreed): the only truly justifiable position on gun control is the review of the law in context of what we want our society to be, and how we wish it to grow, in light of changes in technology. What I didn’t mention before is that I’m not entirely convinced that that is a justifiable position.

I’m willing to listen and debate that issue, and believe myself to be amenable to reason on it, but would listen very carefully to the arguments being made, and bear in mind the past words and actions of those of my opposites on the issue. The first hint of specious reasoning or biased research being used to promote a more pro-control agenda that further restricts the rights of law-abiding citizens without also addressing criminal accoutability, and the strategy for reducing criminal misuse of firearms with something other than further bans on weapons and people would be the end of discussion.

Not “is it necessary?”; necessity is no basis for judging the efficacy or wisdom of personal freedom (in general) in the underlying philosophy which guided the authors of our Constiution. The ability of citizens to make choices, for good or bad, are as equally inherent in our system as it is within the realm of all free democracies, and almost all religions. People have done bad things with the powers of mass communications; with religious fervor, and with mass riots the either started as peaceable assemblies or were disguised initially as peaceable assemblies.

But the misguided or deliberate actions of a few are not justification for infringeing the rights of the many; even “reasonalbe restrictions” need to be carefully reviewed and considered (to prevent the Law of Unintended Consequences from sinking it’s sharp and unforgiving teeth into our tender collective asses) before being implemented.

But the U.S. v. Miller Supreme Court finding strongly hinted that the types of weapons that citizens could keep and bear should bear some resemblance to “ordinary military equipment”. Please pay particular attention to the last sentence of the third paragraph; I bolded it for emphasis.

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.

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- ‘To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.’ U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179] were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

The case narrowly ruled on whether a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” was considered “ordinary military equipment”.

I hope that this clears up the matter just a touch; taken in conjunction with my previous description of the differences between “arms” and “ordnance” (admittedly drawn from military experience and not necessarily an accurate reflection of what various legislatures have found or said), it provides by inference a basic, and not-all-inclusive description, on the types of arms the people may keep and bear.