Where are all the 2A absolutists?

Lavender Room
61

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

62

I don’t know your particular circumstances,
but you could probably own a tank.

I only have a four-car garage and it is currently full, so not sure the tank would fit. But I may look into it.

63

The Cargill v. Garland case will have oral arguments before the Supreme Court on Wednesday, February 28. This case is not about allowing machineguns to be purchased by everyone. It is about the ATF just making up rules as they feel like it without approval from Congress.

I think that technically you are right. But, that said, if the scotus kooks invalidate a large body of existing (and admittedly arbitrary) ATF rules, good luck on getting congress to pass anything of substance in this area. The NRA and others will ensure that nothing gets through.

So then it will indeed be open season.

64

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Gun Control Act of 1934

Miller v. United States

Gun Control Act of 1986

Miller is usually cited when gun control laws are challenged constitutionally. There is also a Gun Control Act of 1993 (the Brady Act).

There have been other challenges but the restriction on machine guns and the like has always remained. Even Miller challenged short barrel shotguns and not automatic weapons. In the last 90 years no one has really had a problem with that restriction, to me, for obvious reasons.

65

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

The ownership of machineguns is controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it yet.

66

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

The ownership of machineguns is controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it yet.

I guess that makes my point even more. If it has never been taken up to the SC, then folks are not clamoring to own Full Auto weapons. Seems most people are comfortable with the current regulations if no one has challenged it yet.

67

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

I know a guy with a few full auto guns, one is a .45cal Uzi. Let me tell you, a mag dump on full auto is fun. He is neither a crook nor bad guy. In fact, he is a cop.

68

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

I know a guy with a few full auto guns, one is a .45cal Uzi. Let me tell you, a mag dump on full auto is fun. He is neither a crook nor bad guy. In fact, he is a cop.

Exactly. I shot fully auto guns on one occasion when a girl I knew in HS, her dad was a US Marshall, and he had some at his farm. Shot some Uzi’s, M16s and a tommy gun. The ammunition costs is a pain and it goes by quick, but it is definitely a fun experience to see bullets tear up a junk car, some bottles or a metal target.

69

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

The ownership of machineguns is controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it yet.

I guess that makes my point even more. If it has never been taken up to the SC, then folks are not clamoring to own Full Auto weapons. Seems most people are comfortable with the current regulations if no one has challenged it yet.

The NFA machinegun regulation has not been challenged yet because you first have to find someone that has standing. The people that own machineguns don’t commit crimes, so they don’t have standing.

Second, the pro gun community has been afraid of straight up challenging the constitutionality because of the judges that were previously on the Supreme Court. If the pro gunners lost, that would set a bad precedent.

Since the Heller and Bruen cases have shown that the current Supreme Court is in favor of an originalist view of the Constitution, you will see a straight up challenge to the NFA in the near future. It will probably start with a lawsuit about suppressors and then progress to lawsuits about short barreled rifles and machineguns.

70

Reasonable restrictions on what “To bear arms” means have been in place for years. You are not allowed to have an RPG, a tank or lots of other deadly weapons. So far, the SC has said fully auto is a good point to have a restriction. No reason they will change that.

Can you point to the Supreme Court decision on this? I’d be interested in the reasoning behind it. Thanks.

Yes, I too would also be very, very interested in this.

Looking forward to your reply.

Don’t we have restrictions on who can own a fully auto right now? I can’t just walk into Academy and buy a full auto UZI can I? So therefore, it must have been held somewhere, at some point, that fully auto UZI’s are restricted and not avaiblle to the general public. Or has that never been challenged and the SC has not spoken on the issue. I assumed it had been ruled on, but perhaps you should go to the gun store and ask them for a full auto and when they say NO, you should bring it up to the SC.

Just the crooks and bad guys get to have them.

The ownership of machineguns is controlled by the National Firearms Act of 1934. The Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on it yet.

I guess that makes my point even more. If it has never been taken up to the SC, then folks are not clamoring to own Full Auto weapons. Seems most people are comfortable with the current regulations if no one has challenged it yet.

The NFA machinegun regulation has not been challenged yet because you first have to find someone that has standing. The people that own machineguns don’t commit crimes, so they don’t have standing.

Second, the pro gun community has been afraid of straight up challenging the constitutionality because of the judges that were previously on the Supreme Court. If the pro gunners lost, that would set a bad precedent.

Since the Heller and Bruen cases have shown that the current Supreme Court is in favor of an originalist view of the Constitution, you will see a straight up challenge to the NFA in the near future. It will probably start with a lawsuit about suppressors and then progress to lawsuits about short barreled rifles and machineguns.

Good to know. Suppressors seem pretty cool for use at the range or farm.

71

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

72

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

Please don’t put suppressors in the same vane as full auto and short barrel weapons. The fact that suppressors are outlawed in some states has always baffled me. All they do is reduce the sound pressure, making the weapon more comfortable to use. They do not “silence” the weapon like in the movies.

73

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

First, the NRA is not the big player in the pro gun area. Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Association for Gun Rights, National Shooting Sports Foundation, New York Rifle and Pistol Association, and California Rifle and Pistol Association are really doing the work. One of my favorites is Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership because they “attempt to prove that genocide is linked to gun control, by showing that most countries where a genocide has taken place had gun control first”.

Most of these groups want to completely gut the NFA, GCA and any other gun control law so that law abiding citizens can keep and bear any arm that they feel that they need to fight against tyrannical governments. If the 2nd Amendment is implicated by a rule or law, it is the government’s burden to show that it falls within the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation that existed around 1791.

A background check to see if someone is a violent felon is probably constitutional. (We will probably see the Supreme Court rule that non-violent felons can own firearms very soon.)

74

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

I rest my case …

Welcome to the 2nd amendment.

75

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

I rest my case …

Welcome to the 2nd amendment.

Guess I better head to the gun store and stock up. I don’t want to be the only one without a full arsenal.

76

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

I rest my case …

Welcome to the 2nd amendment.

Guess I better head to the gun store and stock up. I don’t want to be the only one without a full arsenal.

Yup, that’ll make the gun companies and funeral homes very happy.

Be careful what you wish for …

77

If you want a machinegun, they cost about $20K. You will need to fill out a Form 4 and wait about a year to be approved. You will also have to buy a $200 tax stamp because it is an NFA regulated item. (The tax stamp automatically makes the machinegun safe.)

78

Most of these groups want to completely gut the NFA, GCA and any other gun control law so that law abiding citizens can keep and bear any arm that they feel that they need to fight against tyrannical governments. If the 2nd Amendment is implicated by a rule or law, it is the government’s burden to show that it falls within the nation’s history and tradition of firearms regulation that existed around 1791.

Do you think it makes sense, and if so why, to strictly apply (let’s call them) mores/laws/etc from 1791 now? I’ve always struggled with this idea. Culture changes. Ideas change. Laws change. Social expectations and responsibilities change. But words, once written, don’t.

79

From your post, it seems I am probably wrong and DSW maybe right in that the gun lobby really does want folks to have access to fully auto, suppressors etc without regulations. Is that correct?

Does the NRA suggest everyone that is a law biding citizen should have access to fully auto weapons, suppressors, etc with little to no regulation or similar to the current regulation for owning a bolt action rifle ( just a background check in Texas and filling out a form?

I didn’t think folks really wanted to push for fully auto weapons as let’s be honest, we regular folks don’t need them and if they get in circulation, the bad guys will just a larger supply of them.

What is the NRA or gun lobby position on the right to own or any restrictions on fully auto?

Please don’t put suppressors in the same vane as full auto and short barrel weapons. The fact that suppressors are outlawed in some states has always baffled me. All they do is reduce the sound pressure, making the weapon more comfortable to use. They do not “silence” the weapon like in the movies.

Same. It’s a safety device. It doesn’t increase the lethality of a weapon.

80

Same. It’s a safety device. It doesn’t increase the lethality of a weapon.

Never used one. But doesn’t it also reduce the noise level, such that it might make it easier for someone to commit a gun crime with a somewhat lower chance of detection? No, it won’t be remotely silent, but slightly less people would hear the gun shot, yes? Or zero people if they are far away from the crime location.