chairboy...ACLU

[lazs2]

thanks jeezy... that is pretty much how I look at it... a fundamental constitutional issue... if we allow the government to make the second a collective right then we are indeed on a slippery slope that is in direct opposition to what the constitution says....  I think the liberals here and the ACLU should realize this before the next patriot act decides that they have no rights at all save those the governement gives them...

And.. jeezy.. how do you feel about the 9th circuit?  I know you think miller was a bad case (as do I)  Do you think that it implied that if you could prove a military use that a firearm should be uninfringed?  And lastly... how do you feel about the recent DOJ report?

subaru... I don't have pics but in the civil war many cavalry raiders used very short shotguns... naval blunderbuss was a shotgun (smoothbore) of about 16" barrel.  

As for mortars and rockets etc... those are not considered arms but... ordinance.

There are firearms laws that make sense... you can't store dynomite or even large quantitiies of gunpowder... this would endanger your neighbors in a fire or rescue workers say.    I have no trouble with regulations on explosive devices so long as they do not prohibit them.

The laws on the machine guns and silencers and short shotguns make no sense...  they are unconstitutional in my mind.   And.. they were never a problem in any case.

the supremes and the ACLU have both ducked the 2nd for much the same reasons... cowardice and deciet and conflict with agenda on the part of the ACLU and just cowardice and fear of a tidal wave of legal cases on the part of the supremes.

I felt that it was very important to not have a liberal appoint supremes so the last pres election was important.

Do we have inalienable rights or.... is our freedom only what the government says it is?  you can't want the government to disarm us but stay out of our internet say.

lazs

[SaburoS]

Originally posted by Toad
OK, here's the standard:



First, do you know the actual length of the barrel in the Miller vs US case?

Are you prepared to say that a shotgun with a 20" barrel is not "sawed off" and is of the kind in common use at the time but a shotgun with a barrel length of 17 7/8" is somehow different?

You're saying 20" is in common use but 17 7/8" is somehow radically different? The overall length of a trench gun is ~39.5" but if the o/l length was 36.9 it's now "not in common use"?

... and I have a follow-up, your honor.

No I plead ignorance of the Miller Case. Too lazy to Google it, plus was interested in the evidence and viewpoints of those favoring Miller in this case.

What was Miller's shotgun cut down to?
What type was it?
If so show me

...and of the kind in common use at the time.

Thing with a sawed off, one loses the ability to choke the end of the barrel to control spread pattern.

Haven't seen anyone here yet show sawed off shotguns used in battle, let alone as a main battle weapon.
What I'd like to see is that someone about to join battle, decides that sawing off the end of his shotgun is going to make it more effective.
Take into account the limited amount of ammo the shotgun can carry, it has very limited use overall in battle. A sawed off loses the ability to control the important shot pattern to make it that much less effective.

[GRUNHERZ]

Originally posted by SaburoS


Thing with a sawed off, one loses the ability to choke the end of the barrel to control spread pattern.

Haven't seen anyone here yet show sawed off shotguns used in battle, let alone as a main battle weapon.
What I'd like to see is that someone about to join battle, decides that sawing off the end of his shotgun is going to make it more effective.
Take into account the limited amount of ammo the shotgun can carry, it has very limited use overall in battle. A sawed off loses the ability to control the important shot pattern to make it that much less effective.

From Toad's link. This is a current US military shotgun, how long can that barrel be?

[MrCoffee]

Yeah, there's a reason why we have a right to bear arms. Yes, there are also limitations on that right, just as there are for the other rights. Neither the pro-gun nor the anti-gun types seem to accept this position so I'll just stay out of it and let them scream at each other. They don't need my help. [/B]

yes the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by MrCoffee
yes the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

And yet, the Supreme Court has yet to turn down a gun control law... EVER.

[Toad]

Originally posted by SaburoS
What was Miller's shotgun cut down to?
What type was it?

[/b]

The records only show that it was a Stevens double barrel "of less than 18 inches."
 

Thing with a sawed off, one loses the ability to choke the end of the barrel to control spread pattern.

Haven't seen anyone here yet show sawed off shotguns used in battle, let alone as a main battle weapon.

[/b]

All of the military "jungle" and "trench" guns to date have been cylinder bore. That means they have no choke. So your first concern does not apply. "No choke" is military standard. The differnce between a 20" and 15" cylinder bore is negligble.

Proof of this is in the Army's LSS, where the ENTIRE attachment variation is 16.5 inches in length. Not the barrel.. the whole attachment.

The LSS is CURRENTLY  in use with the 10th Mountain Div in Afghanistan.

A total of 199 of the weapons were fielded in October 2003 to the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan. The division requested them as “an urgent operational need,” Smith said.

The shotgun fires 2.75 and 3 inch lethal, non-lethal and door-breaching rounds. It has a detachable, five-round magazine, and incorporates a standoff device to fire door-breaching rounds.

The attachment is 16.5 inches in length and weighs 2 pounds, 11 ounces—less than the M203 grenade launcher. The stand-alone weapon is 24 inches long collapsed; weighs 4 pounds, 3 ounces, and has a pistol grip and a butt stock.

Plans call for each squad to get at least one shotgun, Smith said. Eventually, every fire team could get one.

 


Clearly, this shotgun has a barrel length far shorter than 18". Probably something like 8". Clearly it is in use with regular Army units. Clearly it invalidates the Miller v US concern regarding "in common use at the time".

After all, the intent is for every fireteam to have one.


Also, wrt military use barrel length was/is really only a factor in velocity. In the old days, shotgun powders were slow burning and longer barrels were needed to attain maximum payload velocity. Now, however, there are fast burning shotgun powders that have made the barrel length/velocity relationship essentially moot.

What I'd like to see is that someone about to join battle, decides that sawing off the end of his shotgun is going to make it more effective.

[/b]

Again I refer you to the Army LSS. As Grun posted, the attachment can be fitted with a pistol grip and used "stand alone" as a shotgun pistol.

Looks like the US Army has decided a shotgun pistol is going to be effective. Since these are in "common use" now, I think there needs to be a "redo" on Miller v US.
 

Take into account the limited amount of ammo the shotgun can carry, it has very limited use overall in battle. A sawed off loses the ability to control the important shot pattern to make it that much less effective.

Not to beat a dead horse, but all the military shotguns for close in work have been cylinder bore, so there is no "loss of ability to control the important shot pattern". You have a basic misconception here.

The "limited amount of ammo" is 6 in the LSS (1 in chamber, 5 in magazine. Just happens to be the same as the Model 97 trench gun (tubular magazine though), the same as the Model 12 trench gun, the same as almost all the military shotguns except the last versions with extended 6 or 7 shot magazines.

Limited overall use in battle?

A total of 199 of the weapons were fielded in October 2003 to the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan. The division requested them as “an urgent operational need,” Smith said...

...Plans call for each squad to get at least one shotgun, Smith said. Eventually, every fire team could get one.

[SaburoS]

Still not a sawed off double barrel (in Miller's case). Front bead sight gets chopped as well in that case.

"The first configuration of the LSS is an attachment that fastens beneath the barrel of an M16A2 rifle or M4A1 carbine, eliminating the need for a second complete weapon. LSS fires 2.75 and 3 inch shells of all types of lethal, non-lethal and door breaching rounds. The main application for a shotgun is MOUT, military operations in urban settings. Soldiers can use it to breach doors by shooting off hinges or door locks. Experience shows that breaching rounds are most effective when fired three inches or less away from the target."

Notice no army is fielding sawed off double barrel shotguns.

The above shotgun is box magazine fed, allowing rapid reloading for different loads depending on the limited situation where a shotgun load is most desirable such as breaching door locks and non-lethal crowd control.

Sawed-off double barrel shotguns compared to the shotgun used in the LSS is of apples to oranges.

Sawed-off double barrel shotgun:
No aimed fire possible.
Not able to attach to main battle/assault rifle.
Limited main load and no practical rapid reloading.
Military value is negligible.
Not shown to be in use as a "common weapon" (let alone in limited use) in military ops.

While we're at it, the ruling was based in around the '30s so it wasn't even in "common use" then either.

You or anyone else has yet to show a sawed off "common use" example yet.

***********

Now having said that, I still support the legalization of all so called "assault weapons", shotguns, pistols, rifles, etc.
I absolutely hate the idiots that pose as politicians thinking that banning things actually solves anything.

In this thread I find silly the notion of a sawed-off having military value. Do not confuse my putting down shotguns as they do have their place. A sawed off bouble barrel does not.

[Edbert]

I'd like to hear more about why the SCOTUS would duck when there's a circuit split like that. Were they waiting until dubya can pack the court a little more?

[lazs2]

let's hope so edbert..  I think the SC was the best reason to re elect Bush..  that and the sunsetting of the unconstitutional assault weapons ban and the protection for gun manufacturers law that just passed..

The SC has been ducking the second for a very long time... they were afraid of the reprecussions of an honest ruling and the flood of second amendment rights abuse cases that would follow if they affirmed that the second was indeed an individual right and the PEOPLE(s) rights could not be infringined...  their cowardice has just made it worse.   More unconstitutional laws are passed every day...  some have huge financial cash cows attached...

making up laws to restrict firearms is big government bussiness and a source of immense power over people... they ain't gonna give it up eaisily.... You think the BATF wants to just go away or shrink?

lazs

[Edbert]

Assuming then a general upholding of the 2nd to mean all free people of voting age, this would only apply to federal law and neither prohibit or overturn any state-laws restricting the possesion of a firearm. Right?

[Toad]

Originally posted by SaburoS

In this thread I find silly the notion of a sawed-off having military value. Do not confuse my putting down shotguns as they do have their place. A sawed off bouble barrel does not.

LOL! Silly? You should call 10th Mountains Div Commander and tell him what a dipshirt he is.

A total of 199 of the weapons were fielded in October 2003 to the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan. The division requested them as “an urgent operational need,” Smith said.[/size]

OK, how about THIS then.... since it's now in "common use" I can have one right?



Five round box magazine, 17" long TOTAL overall length, barrel maybe 8" of that and you'll note it has no front bead or sight of any kind.

Since I am militia by definition of Miller and since this shotgun pistol is in "common use" with 10th Mountain, I'm sure you'll agree it's legal for me to own....right?

[lazs2]

but.... states couldn't make unconstitutiona law...

Take for instance NO... the state of La couldn't pass a law that said that all black people in the state would be arrested whenever their was a riot... or Kalifornia could not pass a law that made writing conservative articles in the newspaper a crime.

The whole point is that the constitution is so darn precise on the matter... "shall not be infringed" is tough to make laws around.

lazs

[Toad]

Sawed-off double barrel shotguns compared to the shotgun used in the LSS is of apples to oranges.

Sawed-off double barrel shotgun:
No aimed fire possible.

[/b]

Note the LSS pistol; no sights. Sidenote: if you do some reading, you'll find one reason the military likes the shotgun is that in close quarters, "aimed fire" is not a critical factor. It's point and shoot in the general direction. It's what shotguns do. This point has no point and in fact shows another misunderstanding.

Not able to attach to main battle/assault rifle.

[/b]

Please view the pictures of the 3 variations on the LSS. I'm sure you'll see that one is "stand alone" with a collapsible buttstock and a barrel far less than 18". Another is a shotgun pistol with a handgrip, 17" long overall.

So "attachable" is another red herrring.

Limited main load and no practical rapid reloading.

[/b]

A short break open double barrel is faster to reload than a military battle rifle of the same period as Miller. In the 30's, battler rifles were not clip fed; the rounds were inserted one at a time into an internal magazine. I assure you, reloading the double barrel would be faster than that. Battle rifles of the time usually had 5 round internal magazines.

Military value is negligible.

[/b]

This is just you being stubborn. Shotguns have been a value military weapon since the American Revolution. You might be interested to realize that the Model 97, Model 12, Browning A-5 and Remington 11's in military use during WW1 & 2 were considered "sawed off" with a 20" barrel. That's because of the slow burning powder issue I mentioned earlier. Duck guns, which threw the largest fastest charges, usually had a 32" barrel in those days. Thus, the 20" military guns were considered very short. Nonetheless their military value was established when 20,000 Model 97's alone went off to WW1.

Not shown to be in use as a "common weapon" (let alone in limited use) in military ops.

[/b]

Only because you choose not to look. As I said, short shotguns and shotgun pistols were used in the American revolution and Civil War and short shotguns were very common in WW1.

[midnight Target]

Originally posted by jEEZY
Actually...the collective rights model is well-settled as the correct interpretaion, nobody has published a serious article otherwise in over thirty years. A circuit split only denotes a political split, not necessarily a split in understanding. Indeed, one of the most liberal law prof, Amar, came to the collective rights model while researching an article he wanted to right on the collective rights model. In my view, cogent research clearly indicates an induvidual right in the 2nd amendment.

 

Assuming you meant individual right?

Or did you?

Add the 4th Circuit to the split

In 1939, the Supreme Court held that the federal statute prohibiting possession of a sawed-off shotgun was constitutional, because the defendant had not shown that his possession of such a gun bore a 'reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.' United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178, 59 S.Ct. 816, 818, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939). Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right...." (Love v. Pepersack)

[Toad]

Since then, the lower federal courts have uniformly held that the Second Amendment preserves a collective, rather than individual, right...."

Not true. United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held it was an individual right in the Emerson case.

There's a lower federal court that DID NOT uniformly hold the 2nd is a collective right.

I personally would like to see this settled once and for all at the SC level.

Then we could either get on with the 2nd American Revolution or we could get on with life under the liberties intended by the Founders.