What actually are the constitutional limits to owning weapons?

[Circe]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms". Consequently, one must either interpret "arms" to mean any weapon at all, or to adopt common sense laws with respect to what "arms" are. I don't think that anyone would define arms as meaning only a BB gun, nor would anyone argue that they have a right to a nuclear missile.

Good point: serious problem, the definition of arms. In Scalia's interesting attempt to start rationalizing all this, he IS defining "arms" protected by the Second as something "normally" carried by soldiers, or at least by private citizens training up in private life to be the levee en masse "militia" that is basically every able-bodied young male in the country, a pool of cannon fodder.....I mean soldiers, that is.

Well, now apparently able-bodied young females, too. Don't get me started.

I don't think it is at all clear that arms don't include nukes! Or all the other high-powered weapons available now. That is in fact exactly the subject under argument. It can't be clear if we are debating it now. Certainly rocket launchers and AK-47s are in common possession in Africa and are even fired into the air in celebration. That could be the case here: how does the Second say no? It doesn't --------- yet.

Probably needs rationalization at this point in time. It's a confused legal mess right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon. The Second CLEARLY refers to normal infantry weapons, if it does nothing else. Nothing is clearer than that a proscription against grenades is simply unconstitutional. Yet we do it anyway.

So what about that? Is that okay with you that there is an unconstitutional ban on grenades, or do you want grenades sold at every local gun shop for anyone to buy, just like assault rifles?

What say we focus on what people DO that actually harms another, rather than on inanimate objects?

If someone wants to do harm with a grenade, it's not exactly rocket science to make one:

How to Make a homemade RGD-5 hand grenade « Explosives & Fireworks

Hand Grenades & How To Make Homemade Improvised Hand Grenades

[ You are moving the goal posts, but no wonder. We KNOW what people DO, they buy the most powerful, scariest weapons they possibly can and then they shoot up the high school!

If that were true, they would buy machineguns and flamethrowers.
They do not.
Thus, your statement is not true.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it is argued by people who don't think their neighbors should be making home made napalm for a fire works show.

Thank you for proving my point.

Which point would that be?

That the musket argument is argued only by people who know no better.
The law is clear - the 2nd protects weapons availabe today, not just those available in 1791.
No way to honestly argue otherwise.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms". Consequently, one must either interpret "arms" to mean any weapon at all, or to adopt common sense laws with respect to what "arms" are. I don't think that anyone would define arms as meaning only a BB gun, nor would anyone argue that they have a right to a nuclear missile.

Good point

Its not. Constitutional law is clear on the matter.

 

[eflatminor]

Naaaaah, it's a normal infantry weapon. The Second CLEARLY refers to normal infantry weapons, if it does nothing else. Nothing is clearer than that a proscription against grenades is simply unconstitutional. Yet we do it anyway.

So what about that? Is that okay with you that there is an unconstitutional ban on grenades, or do you want grenades sold at every local gun shop for anyone to buy, just like assault rifles?

What say we focus on what people DO that actually harms another, rather than on inanimate objects?

If someone wants to do harm with a grenade, it's not exactly rocket science to make one:

How to Make a homemade RGD-5 hand grenade « Explosives & Fireworks

Hand Grenades & How To Make Homemade Improvised Hand Grenades

[ You are moving the goal posts

No, just pointing out the ridiculous nature of 'feel good' legislation that in no way deters criminals from obtaining that which you hope to ban.

We KNOW what people DO, they buy the most powerful, scariest weapons they possibly can and then they shoot up the high school! If the Columbine boys had done a little more training and experimentation, their SEVERAL propane bombs, at least two of which were the big propane tanks, they had to make two or more trips to carry in all their weapons, the estimate is they would have killed maybe 600 kids --- they place the bombs in the cafeteria, carefully timed for the lunch crowd. None of the big bombs went off, however.

Thanks for proving my point. Shall we ban propane tanks too?

If people can't just go buy them, most are going to be too stupid to make them.

Yea, a Google search or a trip a library is so very difficult...

Or too smart, in the sense that they leave a trail that may very well be noticed

How's that smart?

I think your point is that if people really, really, really are determined to harm a lot of people, they may be able to do this, like Muslim terrorists sometimes do, if they don't get caught first. Okay, that's true.

Yep.

But why make it EASY?

Banning is not making something less easy to obtain, its making it illegal to obtain. When you ban a firearm or they're accessories, you only put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about your regulations and have NO trouble obtaining what you hope to ban.

Giving an edge to the bad guys. That's just insane.

I appreciate you all being willing to talk about grenades. It's the quintessential case: they are certainly covered by the Second Amendment as normal modern military equipment; they are nevertheless very illegal; they would kill HUNDREDS at a time if crazies got hold of them. So they are a good discussion case

Yet, they're easy to build. And no, they're not designed to kill 'hundreds'.

Why criminals don't use them is probably the same reason criminals don't tend to use fully automatic machine guns, they're not the best tool for the job. If you want to rob a store, a handgun is your best choice. If you want to commit a mass killing, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice. Nobody uses a grenade to defend their home because it is a lousy weapon to do so. An AR platform however, is a perfect home defense firearm. Point is, people are going to use the best tool for the task at hand regardless of your laws that have no effect but to put those that obey the law at a disadvantage. Not smart.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Yesterday there was a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Rivkin and Grossman on "Gun Control and the Constitution." I didn't think it was particularly good, but it did remind me that constitutional protections of all kinds have repeatedly been infringed by the government. The authors say of abridging constitutionality that "Any measure must be justified by a legitimate government interest that is compelling or at least important."

There has been a lot of silly talk by not-very-bright people of the kind that think it's somehow an argument to call people "idiots" and "bitches" who don't seem to get at any part of the real arguments. I find that frustrating, because this is quite an important issue, but there is little clear thinking about it.

Stupid argument 1: The government can't and doesn't infringe our gun rights ever ever ever ever and if they ever did this would be the end of the world world world!!!!!

Not so: the government has infringed this Constitutional right all along: no grenades, no submachine guns, no sawed off shotguns, no nukes. Could we please dispense with this sort of non-think?

How does totally misrepresenting one side of the debate make you the smart person?

The argument is not that the government does not infringe on rights, it is that it should not infringe on them. Until you can rationally argue what part of "Shall not be infringed" leaves room for any type of infringement, even a reasonable one with an overwhelming government interest in not dealing with an armed rebellion, which, I am sure, everyone will agree is in the interest of the government, you aren't making a point, you are just spouting things that sound good to you.

The entire point of the Constitution is that all rights, and all power, actually belong to the people. We graciously allow the government to exercise power in order to make it more convenient to accomplish certain things, but that does not mean that we actually cede the ultimate power to the government. We actually reserve the right to use whatever means necessary, including armed rebellion, to prevent the government from exercising too much power.

Stupid argument 2: It's a slippery slope greased with Crisco! Butter! No. 30 motor oil!! If they take away Bubba Boy's 14 assault rifles and his 26 100-round high-capacity magazines, or even just make it illegal for the poor guy to buy the other 17 he wants, that means they'll come after the pistol everyone else keeps in their sock drawer for home defense and the burglars will kill us all!!!!!

Not so: weapons confiscation hasn't happened ever, and they banned the assault rifles for ten years already and none of that happened.

It hasn't happened ever? In the entire history of the world the world no government has ever confiscated the weapons of its subjects?

Leaving aside the obvious fact that it has happened multiple times throughout history, including cases where it has happened right here in the United States, arguing that someone is making a stupid argument by using a stupid argument is so stupid it barely registers on the intelligence meter.

In fact, I think the movement I noticed on the meter was the needle bouncing back to normal after your argument dropped the intelligence of the world as a whole.

The government "infringes" on constitutional liberties all the time: speech and religion as well as the many prohibition on weapons ownership already in place.

And it is wrong every single fucking time it does it. Congratulations though, that did move the intelligence meter, your argument that something is happening that is wrong justifies other things that are wrong managed to drop the collective intelligence of the entire universe by 10 points.

So does anyone who is able to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?

In order for me to have a coherent conversation about this I first need to find someone on the pro gun control side that is coherent. So far, not a single person who supports gun control has articulated anything close to a coherent argument, I have little how that anyone will ever come up with a rational one.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not believe the federal government, or any state or local government, has ever gone door-to-door in an attempt to confiscate weapons. But I believe the California state government did use registration papers to send notices to owners of assault rifles, telling them to “turn them in.”
Then again, rifles, pistols, shotguns & explosives were confiscated from Japanese-Americans in Hawaii after Pearl Harbour in 1942.
Grenades are legal to own with a lot of paperwork and plenty of money
You can own a sawed off shotgun with the minimum of barrel length
The nuke thing = I am not sure about that one.. I know that there is some international law about that but IDK if we can "legally" own them

The government restricts access to uranium, but I think actually building a nuclear weapon is legal, even though you cannot own the fissionable material to make it go boom.

 

[Spoonman]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms". Consequently, one must either interpret "arms" to mean any weapon at all, or to adopt common sense laws with respect to what "arms" are. I don't think that anyone would define arms as meaning only a BB gun, nor would anyone argue that they have a right to a nuclear missile. To me, and I, and I believe the majority of Americans, "arms" should not include 50 round magazines, armor piercing ammo, and automatic rifles. Yes, I know the difference between and automatic rifle and a semi-automatic rifle. Apparantly the gun industry does not, since they promote and sell the AR-15, which is a semi-automatic rifle.

I agree with part here, that arms are meant to include guns, not nukes, planes, tanks, whatever. but as far as a limitation to the capacity, i totally disagree with that. and why i disagree with that is as much as a decade prior to the second amendment, the continental congress was actively seeking multiple shot and large capacity weapons. they not only knew of the technology but were looking to expand it. and by their not putting any limitations on what one had the right to bear, they were explicit in saying that right shall not be infringed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no constitutional limit to owning firearms. Case law is another travesty entirely.

That is the part most people do not understand, case law is not the Constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then again, rifles, pistols, shotguns & explosives were confiscated from Japanese-Americans in Hawaii after Pearl Harbour in 1942.

I myself have no problem with that: the danger of saboteurs and spies was huge then.

Grenades are legal to own with a lot of paperwork and plenty of money

I find that hard to believe; if you could back that up, I'll read the reference.

But if they WERE legal to own, and I notice no one anyone has heard of actually does own them, is that the solution? Make any disfavored weaponry so hard to get and so extremely expensive and so much work to acquire with the legal hurdles, that few do?

You can own a sawed off shotgun with the minimum of barrel length

And then a sawed-off shotgun an inch shorter infringes your Constitutional rights, right?

It sounds like your argument is that they aren't infringing MUCH, REALLY -- like being a little pregnant. It's not a problem, she's not VERY pregnant, just a little bit.

They don't let you own whatever you want to. We know that. That ship has sailed. The question is, what parameters are being used to infringe that right? Should be used? Shouldn't?

Ever watch Mythbusters? They legally own everything they blow up, they just bring in the explosive experts because they aren't stupid.

6 Things You Won't Believe Are More Legal Than Marijuana | Cracked.com

 

[Circe]

No, just pointing out the ridiculous nature of 'feel good' legislation that in no way deters criminals from obtaining that which you hope to ban.



Thanks for proving my point. Shall we ban propane tanks too?

No, why, because the Columbine kids were too stupid to test their bombs before they deployed them? That proves MY point, not yours: if people have to make something (as opposed to buying heavy weaponry ready-to-go from Walmart) MOST of them will be too stupid, like Harris and Klebold were at Columbine. Tremendous deterrent, stupidity and hard work. Another deterrent is the risk of discovery. That's why I didn't click on your link. You think people aren't watching and recording who goes to sites like that? Okay............

Yea, a Google search or a trip a library is so very difficult...

Making your own grenades is so difficult that almost no one has; I've never heard of anyone committing a crime with them. If it were easy, people would.

You hear of people downloading those infamous nuke instructions, but you never, never hear of someone carrying one they made onto the Mall in front of the Capitol, you know? If nukes were available in Walmart, however, that area would already be a radioactive ruin.

Banning is not making something less easy to obtain, its making it illegal to obtain. When you ban a firearm or they're accessories, you only put law abiding citizens at a disadvantage when facing armed criminals that couldn't care less about your regulations and have NO trouble obtaining what you hope to ban.

No, I can't agree with that. Consider drugs: making them illegal DOES make them a whole lot less easily consumed than if you could buy heroin and cocaine at your local liquor store. It just does. You have to go to the ghetto, you have to deal with lowlifes, etc. Same thing with weapons. Buying grenades and submachine guns and rocket launchers at Dick's Sporting Goods would lead to a WHOLE lot more people owning them than is the case now, since they are illegal. Illegal is a deterrent more ways than one. 1: you will go to jail. 2: it's hard to find them and acquire them, takes travel and it's difficult to find the dealer. 3: very high priced, because of the illegality and scarceness. Like drugs. If legal, they'd be cheaper and easier, of course.

I'm fine with legalizing drugs, because I figure there'd be a big die off at first and then, you know, Darwin would reassert himself with the survivors who don't take drugs. But drugs are a problem for the individual who takes them: weapons are a problem for all the kids in the classrooms that get the grenades thrown into them.

Yet, they're easy to build. And no, they're not designed to kill 'hundreds'.

Why criminals don't use them is probably the same reason criminals don't tend to use fully automatic machine guns, they're not the best tool for the job. If you want to rob a store, a handgun is your best choice. If you want to commit a mass killing, a semiautomatic rifle is the best choice.

No, grenades would be GREAT for mass killings. Of course they would kill hundreds!! Toss a few of those babies into an early showing of "World War Z," watch the intestines fly! Run down hallways throwing them into every university classroom you run past, wow, you could really rack up a high score!

You say they are easy to build. Then you must know that, right? Have you built homemade grenades? Why? Are you planning on using them? How are you planning on using them? What area of the country do you live in? Would you like to provide us with an address?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is no constitutional limit to owning firearms. Case law is another travesty entirely.

No, nor is there a constitutional limit to free speech or religion: but the government has indeed made laws that do infringe all of those. Is that --- always bad?

You can't falsely yell "Fire!!" in a crowded theater just because you love excitement.

Conspiracy among a group of Muslims to blow up subways is not protected speech.

The religious freedom of Mormons to make polygamous marriages was infringed by federal troops in the 1890s. The religious freedom of Mormons to have sex with girl children of 12 was infringed this decade.

There's a whole lotta infringing goin' on --- when is it justifiable?

Why do we see this every time someone starts talking about rights?

Yelling fire in a crowded theater has never been, and never will be, a free speech issue, neither is criminal conspiracy. Both are actions, not speech. I can, however, yell fire in a crowded theater if it is true, or if it is part of a performance. I can even do it if I can articulate a political motivation for my action. I can also lay out a detailed plot to blow up a subway without the government being able to step in and silence me.

As for the Mormons, yes, that was infringement, but, as I pointed out already, the mere fact that infringement is occurring does not justify that wrong, nor does it justify more of it. If it worked that way slavery would have been justified,

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So does anyone who is ble to talk coherently on this (leaving aside, I hope, the nasty name-callers incapable of thought whom I have already or will soon discard and report, as usual) have any ideas on this difficult issue of how much and why the government is entitled to infringe on the Second Amendment? Or any Constitutional protection? We know it already does infringe, so ---- what else, if anything?

Any restriction on the exercise of a right is an infringement on the right - the question is if that restriction is constitutionally permissible.

Infringements on fundamental rights specifically protected by the constitutions are generally evaluated by the court under strict scruitiny.
Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In essece, the state has to show that the restriction on question is an effective means thru which to affect a compelling state interest, and is th least restrictive means to that end. Understand that a "compelling state interest" is something that, without, the government cannot function.

The question has never been if the infringement is constitutionally permissible, the question is if the government judges can come up with something to rationalize it.

 

[Circe]

as much as a decade prior to the second amendment, the continental congress was actively seeking multiple shot and large capacity weapons. they not only knew of the technology but were looking to expand it. and by their not putting any limitations on what one had the right to bear, they were explicit in saying that right shall not be infringed.

WERE they. Then they failed bigtime, didn't they?

And Napoleon, one of the greatest generals ever in history, also mysteriously failed to get his hands on a supply of these "multiple shot and large capacity weapons" even years later in the early 1800s.

There was no such technology. If there had been, Americans or British or French would have had it! All weapons are normalized, always. But they can't be normalized if they don't exist yet.

Your argument is that everything we have now was known to the Founding Fathers, who incorporated these modern weapons from 2013 into the Constitution. This is a bad argument. I'd give it up, if I were you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The 2nd Amendment is there to protect Americans against Tyrannical Gov't.

Whatever a Tyrannical Gov't can have, it's Citizens should be able to have as well.

I'm willing to bet the Average Citizen would be MORE responsible with a Drone that the US Gov't is.

I find this notion of the US government as tyrannical a bit odd.

We elected these people, like it or not. They pass the laws we want them to pass. They took us into Iraq because we bought into the bullshit. They use the drones because the American people seem to like the idea. They want to regulate guns because the people want it.

So where is the tyranny? We've got the government we voted for. When have we ever had any different?

I could be wrong, but I don't recall Janet Napolitano running for Secretary of Homeland Security, when did that happen?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Making your own grenades is so difficult that almost no one has; I've never heard of anyone committing a crime with them. If it were easy, people would.

You might be right, if the only factor was the ease of making the weapon. Its not, and so you're wrong.
Of course, even it -were- the only factor, you're -still- wrong -- it takes about 15 minutes and $10 to make a functional grenade.

Clearly, there's a reason why people do not use grenades in mass killings that has nothing to do with the legallity of the weapon or the ease of construction.

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Constitution is silent as to the definition of "arms". Consequently, one must either interpret "arms" to mean any weapon at all, or to adopt common sense laws with respect to what "arms" are. I don't think that anyone would define arms as meaning only a BB gun, nor would anyone argue that they have a right to a nuclear missile.

Good point

Its not. Constitutional law is clear on the matter.

The courts interpretation of the Constitution is subject to change. There is no legal reason why a new court could not reach a different decsion than a previous court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

That's not quite fair, is it? Persons in the late 1700s could not have predicted the invention of grenades, sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, or assault rifles and high-capacity ammo magazines. In those days military weapons were the same as private firearms, and often supplied by the soldier himself.

Many things have changed! Weaponry has become far, far more dangerous. Also the people have become far more dangerous: who in 1790 could have predicted the sewers of violent crime that our urban centers have become, like Los Angeles?

Sigh.

They had grenades since the late 1500s, so they knew about grenades, and had no problem with individuals owning cannons that fired explosive shells. They also had shotgins, and cutting one down was probably not unheard of. They obviously had no problem with individuals owning the most powerful weapons they knew of, so an argument they didn't know of modern weapons, which actually inflict less damage, and would have objected to those, leaves me questioning your logic.

The only real change I see is the lack of knowledge today compared to the people who actually wrote the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see no limits mentioned in the 2nd amendment. I'm sure if they wanted limits they would have mentioned them. If they really feared something more than a single shot weapon being in the hands of the public they would have noted that. they were however very specific in making no exclusions.

The Constitution exists only in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.

The case law will explain the limits to you.

You keep getting that backwards. In reality, case law exists only in context of the Constitution. Repeat that to yourself until you understand what it means.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

ok, to your first point, yes the weapons in the hands of a citizen where the same as the military back then. so why shouldn't they be today? today what is allowed is significantly less than what the military has.

I think it's obvious: in those days the guns used normally on a farm were the same as guns used in the infantry to fight the British. Today's military uses weapons that are extremely dangerous for a people with poor control over madmen and very dangerous unruly populations in overcrowded inner cities. Grenades are normal infantry weapons. Suppose they were as legal as handguns? Crazies would be killing hundreds at a whack, every time one broke out. It would change the whole society, people couldn't gather in public places anymore, churches, movies, malls, all too dangerous.

to your second point, if they were aware of advanced technology, rapid fire weapons and large capacity magazines and it was their intent not to allow them would they have included that in the second amendment? and if they were aware of it and didn't include it, would you agree their intent was that it should be allowed?

I don't understand your point here. The Founding Fathers were not aware of our modern assault rifles; they couldn't imagine them. Things were different then, that's all.

More dangerous than artillery? Why do I find that hard to believe?