When analyzing what is covered, the typical layout of an ordinary person in the military can be a reasonable guide. For items carried upon the person, select fire weapons are not unusual, nor do they present an elevated level of danger. They are also in common use. Poison gas does not fit this criteria. Landmines do not fit this criteria. Missiles, RPGs, artillery etc. do not fit this criteria. Grenades may - but I would leave it to the military to describe what is the standard layout for their personnel.
But why is an ordinary military person the “reasonable guide” as opposed to an ordinary police officer, or an ordinary hunter/sportsman, or ordinary citizen?
Why do you think it’s not? Do you think it’s not?
I know why it is, from the framers perspective, but I’m unsure whether that’s still a valid metric today, given the changes that have transpired between then and now. This is where, IMHO, the Constitution has to be a living document that reflects an ever changing society.
I would think an ordinary person would be a much better measure as to what is in “common use” – after all, ordinary citizens are far more “common” than soldiers. By that measure, semi-auto handguns, revolvers, hunting rifles, and shotguns are all in “common use”, I think, but automatic weapons are not.
Ok - do you have a basis for that construction of “common use”?
Below is my take on it, though I grant it is merely my opinion and in this post I venture into speculative territory.
The scope of the 2nd hasn’t been fully litigated so I think it could go either way. The way I look at the framework is that there are two paths by which a weapon can fall under the umbrella of the 2nd amendment.
Path 1: weapons that would be typical for a person in the military
This is consistent with Miller but this view has not been tested. As the prefatory clause announces a purpose of the operative clause, utilization in a military function seems to square with this understanding in Miller, and is not precluded by Heller.
**
Path 2:** Weapons that are in common use, and are not both dangerous and unusual
Here a reasonable guide would be the bearable arms available to police. Their need for self defense is without question and anything that enhances the self defense of these persons should be available to all persons.
Here is what Heller says about my path 1:
From this, if it can be shown that law abiding citizens possess for lawful purposes select fire weapons, then I would argue they fall under the auspices of both #1 and #2 above. There are still near 500K machine guns, most of which are not allowed to be transferred. And since the rate of crime with those are virtually non-existent, I’d say they are in common use for lawful purposes. This also doesn’t count any select fire weapons in police use.
Note above doesn’t say that M-16’s may be banned - it says that “if they may be banned…”.
The full scope of the 2nd has not yet been resolved.
Does “select-fire” imply automatic? I thought “select-fire” just meant at least two modes of fire, which could include safety and semi-auto, and thus most semi-auto handguns are “select-fire”.
Select fire means you can select between semi-automatic mode and full automatic mode (and in some cases burst, which usually fires a 3 round burst and is actually more useful than full automatic). No, most handguns aren’t select fire…I think what you are talking about is the safety, and a lot of guns have them.
Select fire means the ability to select between semi auto (one round per trigger pull) and some iteration of multiple rounds per trigger pull (full auto or burst). Like this or this or this.
Of course, the lower is just a piece of metal and any creative thing can be engraved. If you are into pirates, this could be more suitable.
It does mean two modes of fire, but “safety” is not one of them.
ETA: ninja’d. Spent too much time looking at that pirate lower.
By automatic do you mean full auto?
Yes.
(underline added)
The “safety” and “semi-auto” modes would be similar to “no fire” and “fire” modes. Thus they are not two modes of fire.
Once more, with feeling. Automatic weapons have been banned in the USA since 1934.
You are wrong. They are restricted from manufacture in some instances and banned in some states, but depending on where you live you could buy one today. You have to fill out much more papetwork but they are not banned. Do you have $10,000?
Interesting. I’ll have to tell my friends that legally own them.
(post shortened)
The Obama/Holder administration did not turn over all of the documents requested. EP still applies to some of the information. Only the information that had already been made public in the Justice Dept. inspector general’s report or other places had to be released. Obama’s and Holder’s specific participation has yet to be determined. Obama could claim EP because his Whitehouse was involved in the operation.
*In January, a federal district court judge rejected Obama’s executive privilege claim over records detailing the Justice Department and White House’s response to Operation Fast and Furious, a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation that may have allowed as many as 2,000 firearms to pass into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. In her ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson did not turn down Obama’s privilege assertion on the merits. Instead, she said authorized public disclosures about the operation in a Justice Department inspector general report essentially mooted the administration’s drive to keep the records secret. Both sides had until midnight Friday to file an appeal. Instead, the Obama administration turned over a set of documents to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The Justice Department believes they won because the judge limited the scope of documents that the president has to turn over. Patrick Rodenbush, a DOJ spokesman, said:
The Department of Justice is pleased that the district court … continued to recognize that the deliberative process component of the executive privilege exists and was a valid basis for the Department to withhold certain documents when requested by the House in 2011. Although the Department disagrees with the district court’s conclusion that the privilege was overcome in this particular case by disclosures and statements made in other contexts, the Department has decided not to appeal the court’s judgment and has provided a production of documents to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
…“Today, under court order, DOJ turned over some of the subpoenaed documents. The Committee, however, is entitled to the full range of documents for which it brought this lawsuit. Accordingly, we have appealed the District Court’s ruling in order to secure those additional documents,” Chaffetz said.*
National Firearms Act. Basically, automatic weapons are restricted and heavily regulated (and gods awful expensive), but they aren’t banned (well, except in a few states). From the link:
I’m not sure what you thought you were saying, or why you wanted to do it with feeling, but you really should click on the link and read the article before weighing in on the subject. But then, that would be good advice for many in this thread. 
Compromises short of outright bans, and they’ve been rejected – because you ‘can’t trust’ the gun control lobby. :rolleyes:
Maybe it’s just a bad argument. “I don’t trust you” isn’t a factual argument; it’s a feeling. You can’t premise an argument on a feeling alone.
No, it’s not non-standard. You tried to pull that shit with me yesterday by somehow differentiating “concessions” from “compromise.” They’re synonymous. I’m not going to debate you on this because linguistics is something I actually have a knowledge of. I speak more than one language fluently, and I’ve studied language structure, semantics, and the like extensively, so I’m not interested in debating with amateurs on the semantic meanings of words.
I’ve never understood something about the 2nd Amendment: There’s a sliding scale of weaponry that exists in the world; on the one hand, everyone is allowed kitchen knives in their kitchen; on the other extreme; no private citizen can have nuclear weapons.
So how hard would it be for the gun-control side to simply push the spectrum a bit further so that guns are now in the “not-allowed” category but as long as everyone still has Tasers or pepper spray, they’re technically bearing arms?