Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: lazs2 on September 16, 2005, 09:36:32 AM
-
In another thread you calimed that the ACLU was, like it or not, their to protect our liberties...
You implied that they were courageous because they faought unpopular fights...
I would refute that by pointing to their stance on gun control... from their own site..
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
they claim that they believe that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual one... but the states for a state controled miulitia... or they claim they do.... they do not acknowledge that "the people" then means "the state" in 16 other place in the constitution.... or.... maybe that is what they really are after??
Their stance is in direct conflict with every other study (like the DOJ report) that affirms it is an individual ritght..
They justify this cowardice by saying that if they admitted that it was an individual right (it is) then they would have to defend against any infrigement and say that people could own "machine guns".... they did until 1934 with not problem... or "cannons and bazookas" they did until 1968 with no problems...
They as much as admit that they are afraid to really address the issue...
They site miller 1939 as being a supreme court ruling that gives the right to bear arms only to state controled militia..
This is an outright lie... I can't believe they made such a whopper up and don't expect people to catch em on it!
Miller decision said that a sawed off shotgun was not a tool that could be used(wrong) by the militia (every able bodied man) and so it could be banned or "infringed" (licenced).
I have taken this stuff right off their website... this is the cowardly nature of the ACLU and perhaps a little proof that agenda is much more important than justice law to them.
lazs
-
I agree with 90 percent of what the ACLU does, since it supports a more libertarian individual rights perspective. But there is obviously a certain degree of true liberalism in the organization as well. Some individual rights are more important than others.
Charon
-
charon... my point is that their liberalism and agenda seems to make them dishonest.
I think it taints every thing they do. I don't think that they ever defend anyuthing without keeping their agenda in mind.... as such... they can't even touch the second... there is nothing at all for them there.
I find it hypocritical in the extreme.
To make myself clear... I do not mind them haveing an agenda... what I mind is their basic and pervading dishonesty about it.
an example of the big lie is that they took some kind of vote and decided that they didn't like the second or think it was an individual right so they don't help anyone yet... in the same breath they claim that they take unpopular stances on other issues even tho they don't belive in them... the point is that they must admit that it is at least (actually certain) debateable that the second guarentees an iondividual right and... absolutely certain that people the people fighting their infringment believe it...
it is at best.... a cowardly stance and at worse... a lieing hypocritical one with an controling agenda.
lazs
-
Miller decision said that a sawed off shotgun was not a tool that could be used(wrong) by the militia (every able bodied man) and so it could be banned or "infringed" (licenced).
The basic premis of the Miller decision is that the Militia is the key. This has never been overturned nor has any law restricting the sale of guns ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds. Point being, people of good conscience can and do disagree on the 2nd and it's meaning.
-
Exactly.
From Miller:
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.
So it IS quite clear that all males phsically capable of acting in concert for the common defense are entitled to keep and bear arms of the kind in use for common military use at the time.
Very difficult to see how there could be any disageement on this considering the Miller ruling.
Obviously, there is disagreement but I don't think "good conscience" enters into it.
-
sorry MT you are wrong... miller (he was dead) lost his right to carry a sawed off shotgun because....
There was no representation for him... only the government (treasury, now ATF) was represented... All questions were addressed to them... the government lied flat out when questioned... the supreme court asked "is it true that a sawed off shotgun has no military use?" the government lied and said no... they had never and could never be used as such.
While both sides claim miller as a victory.... most agree that militia was not the issue but the issue of could the guns in question be considered useful to one.
There was no attempt to define militia in the ruling. The ruling only said that if the gun was useless in a military setting (or to a milita, "the people") then it could be licenced (infringed upon).
those who believe in individual rights look at miller as a victory in that it affirms that effective arms are needed for a militia but.... we find it disturbing that the supreme court was so wrong on the fact that short barreled shotguns were not used...or....
worse yet... the real issue of the 34 tax act was not addressed (purposely all will agree) and that was.... shotguns were not the only weapon on the list... machine guns and silencers were also and.... using the supremes own logic.... they are indeed very useful for the militia (the people).
in any case.... anyone can see that there is a lot more for the ACLU to grab hold of here if they desired than there is for some of the causes that they really go out on a limb to espouse.
lazs
-
I have a problem with the ACLU because they are not indescriminent in the cases they fight. They seem to Allways go after the Boy Scouts and Christianity among other things
I am not at all completly against them because occasionally they do take up cases to help both of the previously mentioned establishments.
If they were a true "civil liberties" organization they would be blind as to what liberties they are protecting just like justice.
-
oops... toad was writing as I was.... He quoted the pertinent passage so I don't need to.
As you can see.... it is considered a victory for the champions of the right to keep and bear arms.
The reason so many who are happy to endlessly debate and rule on the slightest nuance of every amendment... the reason they shy from what the second really says is....
Because what it says is irrefuteable... it is an individual right and would negate thousands of government workers and negate over 20,000 gun control laws and fines and regulators... The government fears an armed populace... the police who are amoung us do not fear an armed population... the people don't fear armed neigbors.... who is the government protecting?
And... as to the ACLU.... I rest my case... they are smart enough to know but they are dishonest and agendized.
lazs
-
I don't like everything the ACLU does, but I think that's healthy. If they only did what I wanted, then that would indicate that they were representing a specific political viewpoint and would be no different from any other lobbying group.
For example, I disagree with any statements they make that seek to limit gun possession, but I'm still a member because I agree with lots of other things they do.
As far as I can tell, the only times they scuffle with Christianity or the Boy Scouts (to respond to GS) is when those groups attempt to create public policy or use government funds for religion or operate in a method that attacks civil rights. In the US Christian view, there seems to be a prevailing opinion that while everyone is equal, US Christians are more equal than others.
-
guns is correct so far as why most of us look at them as a cowardly and hypocritical organization with an agenda.
What makes them liars and hypocrits is the way they justify not defending some rights. They simply don't have the integrety or courage to admit it.... A group that dishonest is well..... not to be trusted.
lazs
-
Miler vs US, Decided MAY 15, 1939
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.
World War I - 1918 Winchester Modely 97 Trench gun
(http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/win97-sm.jpg)
World War II - 1941 Browning A-5 Short barreled shotgun
(http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/rem11-sm.jpg)
VietNam - 1960's Winchester Modle 12 Trench gun
(http://wapahani.com/winm12~1.jpg )
First well known military use of shotguns is dated back to the Great War (1st World War), when Allied forces used various pump-action and self-loading shotguns in the trench warfare.
During the 2nd World War shotguns were used as a security weapons (for guarding and anti-riot purposes), for close combat in jungle environments of SE Asia, where the self-loading shotguns (like the Remington 11 and Auto-5 - both of Browning design) proved to be very valuable for their devastating short-range firepower. The shotguns were also used for aerial gunnery training.
Vietnam war also seen many shotguns used by US troops in the jungles, but these were mostly pump-action shotguns.
It's obvious Miller was wrongly decided. Well, to anyone with an open mind.
-
Miller was wrongly decided because the gun COULD be used by a militia? This is really funny Toad. The question was still asked "is this a militia weapon?" The fact that it was a militia weapon doesn't change the fact that Miller does not uphold individual rights to bear arms.
The key here is the MILITIA, not the gun.
-
mt... you are being dense... The judges knew nothing of firearms and the government (BATF) expoited this since they had no case.... they had earlier lost the case since the federal judge who had earlier upheld millers second amendment rights owned a machine gun "war trophy" he had brought home and was in his closet..
The BATF lied (the first of endless lies) to the judge and claimed that sawed off shotguns had never been used by any military and had no military value so.... Could not be construed as being protected under the second amendment..
Two things are interesting about this... the law an34 that infringed upon the rights of miller did not just concern sawn off shotguns... it was machine guns and silencers too.
At this point.... people had ignored the law and even the supreme court was unaware of it till this case. The supremes wrongly gave a decision based on a lie and did not address machine guns or silencers in the ruling....
The only thing they said was that if a gun was useless to a militia then it enjoyed no second amendment rights.
Towd is right but the guns he shows all have legal length barrels (I own a 97 trench gun)... the revolutionary war and civil war had shotguns the same length as millers tho.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
The only thing they said was that if a gun was useless to a militia then it enjoyed no second amendment rights.
lazs
Yep... I rest my case.
They didn't ask if the gun was useless to an Individual, just to a Militia.
-
MT... I think that your post is proof that it is a bad idea to base your arguements on only reading one side of an issue.
You read only the views of those who consider miller a victory... It actually is a victory but not in the way that you think..
The victory for the gun control guys is a simple one... miller affirmed that infringement upon the right to keep and bear arms could be impossed.... but only on very narrow and distinct grounds.... only if it could be proven that such arms had no military value at all.... that is really what the miller decison was about.
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yep... I rest my case.
They didn't ask if the gun was useless to an Individual, just to a Militia.
What you are not understanding is that you actually lose on that argument.
Being the standard set is that if a gun is usefull to a militia, then it cannot be regulated and, in fact, those are the types of weapons which men are expected to own.
The feds lied and said that a sawed off shotrgun could not be usefull to a militia.
-
MT,
The SC in Miller clearly stated what individuals comprise the militia:
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.
This statement, directly from the text of Miller, leaves no doubt as to the definition of Militia. "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense". If you can march and shoot a gun, you're Militia if you choose to be.
Secondly, Miller stated the kind of arms these individuals had a right to bear:
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 mistake in Miller is here:
"It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
The SC said that in 1939.
Approximately 20,000 Winchester Model 97 trench guns were supplied to the U.S. Army in World War I. 1918... surely the SC should have been aware of that. These guns were still in US Army issue at the time of the decision.
Further, the Winchester Model 12 trench and riot guns were again procured with a total of more than 80,000 guns ordered by the U.S. Government by 1945, more than any other combat shotgun of the time.
Ithaca Gun Co. produced a small number of Model 37 trench guns and a larger number of Model 37 riot guns and training guns.
Stevens Arms Co. delivered trench gun, riot gun and training versions of its Model 520-30 and 620A shotguns.
Remington Arms Co. turned out riot and training gun variants of its Model 11 autoloading shotgun, and Savage Arms Co. produced a number of the almost-identical Model 720 riot guns and training guns.
Clearly, in both WW 1 & 2, shotguns were "of the kind in common use at the time" by the military.
Short-barreled shotguns continue in use in the US military to this day.
So Miller was wrong on that point. That's why it is wrongly decided.
And today? All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense still comprise the militia and this shotgun is being tested/used in Iraq:
(http://www.defensereview.com/1_31_2004/AA12%20Shotgun_1.jpg)
In late 2003, the Army fielded a Lightweight Shotgun System to troops in Afghanistan, responding to an "urgent operational need" from 10th Mountain Division soldiers.
Able bodied males are the militia. Shotguns are in common use by out military.
-
MT... you "rest" your "case" on a loss then because the court affirmed that miller was part of the militia. If miller was being tried because as part of the militia.... he owned an arm that was useless then... it is simple logic that no other arm (useful to a militia or military) could be infringed on for him...
since miller was an individual and did not fit your defenition of a militia but was in fact a militiaman in the constitutional sense.... ie... "an able bodied man past the age of 16" then the case of individual rights is proven...
If miller did not belong to a militia then there was no point in trying him. The court affirmed that he at least part of the militia but said that his arms were not necessary or useful for his role as a militiaman.
lazs
-
they have shotguns in counter-strike.
-
I find it hypocritical in the extreme.
I agree with you 100 percent.
The basic premis of the Miller decision is that the Militia is the key. This has never been overturned nor has any law restricting the sale of guns ever been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds. Point being, people of good conscience can and do disagree on the 2nd and it's meaning.
I agree with that as well, though I obviously believe the Miller decision took a shallow view of the 2nd amendment that is not based on the reality of firearm ownership during our founding or the way militia was defined at that time.
As for the ACLU, they don’t provide a lot of documentation to prove their position. They also have a “neutral” stance here but fight tooth and nail over what could be considered minor (but IMO legitimate) issues where other rights are concerned, avoid an ongoing debate on the subject and avoid recent scholarship into a collective vs. individual right.
IMO, they just don’t like it, and want to ignore it. There are apparently a few “slipped” statements along those lines. I found them a year or so ago but can’t find them today. And, it is not an illogical position given the organization has far more of an East Coast academic foundation than, say, a Montana libertarian base.
Some ACLU critiques:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=307
http://www.old-yankee.com/aclu2.html
Some more of the recent scholarship on individual vs. collective and militia
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html
A bunch from CATO
http://www.constitution.org/mil/embar2nd.htm
In simpler terms
http://www.outdoorsbest.com/kates061404/
The less than awe inspiring ACLU response
http://www.aclu.org/PolicePractices/PolicePractices.cfm?ID=9621&c=25
Including this red herring built on not understanding the differences (present and 18th century) between arms and ordinance. And also the practicalities outlined in the Federalist papers about the level attention, training and commitment you could reasonably expect from "the people." Just having a gun and a willingness to use it were seen as being about the limit, vs. training in your local armored brigade.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms.
And, of course, we recently went through much of that here:
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=148641&referrerid=5405
Charon
-
I wish many conservatives were as adamant abolut protecting my 4th amendment rights as they are about the 2nd ammendment, just the same way I wish the ACLU was as adamant about protecting my 2nd amendment right as they are about the imaginary ones.
-
Don't forget the ACLU was founded by a commie, and you know how commies fear people with guns.
-
I wish many conservatives were as adamant abolut protecting my 4th amendment rights as they are about the 2nd ammendment
Gets in the way of being "tough on crime..." After all, if you ain't guily, what are you afraid of? :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Edbert
I wish many conservatives were as adamant abolut protecting my 4th amendment rights as they are about the 2nd ammendment, just the same way I wish the ACLU was as adamant about protecting my 2nd amendment right as they are about the imaginary ones.
Well... if there were no NRA, I might agree, but the NRA is covering the 2nd just fine without any help from the ACLU.
-
Originally posted by Charon
Gets in the way of being "tough on crime..." After all, if you ain't guily, what are you afraid of? :)
Exactly, thank you VERY much!
I wish most republicrats would admit to being the rebirth of the nazi party, then the Dumbocrats could confess to being Stalinites in seach of the perfect commune and leave the rest of us who think the constitution was fine (after the 14th amemdment) the he11 alone!
-
sandman..only reason why NRA is here is people liek me who donate money to save our guns...
f ing redicluos..pisses me off...I have to spend money so criminals know who isnt armed
-
MT... to save you the trouble and to quote something that may explain it better than my feeble attempts...
"The second stance by the ACLU--which involves the 1939 Supreme Court case of U.S. vs. Miller--is equally flawed as their first belief. This case is the only time the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to directly rule on the constitutionality of federal firearm statues during the 20th century. In this case, the court ruled that "in the absence of any evidence that that the use or possession of a shotgun with a barrel of less than eighteen inches has a reasonable relationship or use in a militia, we cannot say that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of one to keep such an instrument." In addition, the Court ruled that the weapon in question was not any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Clearly, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia or military type weapon. Also, the Court noted that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 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 court implicitly rejected the belief that only those members of a specific militia are covered under the 2nd Amendment when it did not discuss whether there should be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia. Clearly, they understood that the militia was all of the people. The rulings from this case are not supportive of the ACLU's position whatsoever, and in fact one could easily make an argument that if challenged, the bans on certain types of semiautomatic rifles, such as that included in the Brady Crime Bill and found in states such as New Jersey and California, are unconstitutional and would be struck down if challenged. As with the first position of the ACLU, one must conclude that there is little or no evidence to support their position. In fact, one would have to argue that the evidence supporting the opposite view presented by 2nd Amendment advocates is overwhelming. "
and Sandie.... if you feel that the NRA is supporting your right to keep and bear arms adequetly then I would ask.... Do you support them? I would also point out that the NRA is not fighting the basic premis of the second but merely fighting a holding action...
I would like all restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms removed. This would include machine guns and silencers but not ordinance.... ordinance is not arms. Just as bombs and explosives were not protected then.... they would not be now.
We are all in trouble tho if the supreme court ever rules that "the people" does not mean individuals but only a collective group.
lazs
-
I believe in the 4th.
lazs
-
I support all ammendments equally. I just find the 2nd to be encroached upon more then all the others combined.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I believe in the 4th.
lazs
I'll drink a 5th...
-
Originally posted by Toad
Obviously, there is disagreement but I don't think "good conscience" enters into it.
I disagree. I think your of good conscience Toad.
So..... Regardless of the fact that Miller keyed on the word "militia" and that the last word from the SC does NOT uphold the individual right to bear arms.
Why in the hell did our founding fathers put that stupid sentence about a well regulated militia into the amendment. What were they thinking!!???
-
Why in the hell did our founding fathers put that stupid sentence about a well regulated militia into the amendment. What were they thinking!!???
Have you bothered to read any of the material on collective vs. individual rights in any of the links posted? Pretty easy to understand, actually, if you actually bother to look.
This one, for example. It's not the 6 or 7 paragraphs provided by the ACLU, in that it probably takes a good 45 minutes or so of careful reading to work through it. 300+ footnotes. Right to the point though, and not overly difficult even though it was published in a law journal..
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OR THE POWER OF THE STATE: BEARING ARMS, ARMING MILITIAS, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.
Copyright © 1991 Stephen P. Halbrook; Valparaiso U. Law Review. Originally published as 26 Val. U. L. Rev. 131-207 (1991)
http://www.guncite.com/journals/val-hal.html
This one is good too. About like the first.
UNDER FIRE: THE NEW CONSENSUS ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT
Copyright © 1996 Emory Law Journal. Originally published as 45 Emory L.J. 1139-1259 (1996).
http://www.guncite.com/journals/bk-ufire.html
Charon
-
BTW. "What they were thinking!!??" is that fire arms ownership was such a natural accepted part of general freedom (and the basic facilitator of freedom personal, or GENERAL milita as opposed to SELECT militia) that such a debate today would be beyond comprehension when the Constitution was being written.
Here's a small selection
Ten days after the Bill of Rights was proposed in the House, Tench Coxe published his "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pen name "A Pennsylvanian," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette.[204] Probably the most complete exposition of the Bill of Rights to be published during its ratification period, the "Remarks" included the following: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." In short, what is now the Second Amendment was designed to guarantee the right of the people to have "their private arms" to prevent tyranny and to overpower an abusive standing army or select [edit: organized, national guard style] militia.
Coxe sent a copy of his article to Madison along with a letter of the same (p.175)date. "It has appeared to me that a few well tempered observations on these propositions might have a good effect .... It may perhaps be of use in the present turn of the public opinions in New York state that they should be republished there."[205] Madison wrote back, acknowledging "your favor of the 18th instant. The printed remarks inclosed in it are already I find in the Gazettes here [New York]." Madison endorsed Coxe's analysis--including that the amendment protected the possession and use of "private arms"--with the comment that ratification of the amendments "will however be greatly favored by explanatory strictures of a healing tendency, and is therefore already indebted to the co-operation of your pen."[206]
Coxe's defense of the amendments was widely reprinted.[207] A search of the literature of the time reveals that no writer disputed or contradicted Coxe's analysis that what became the Second Amendment protected the right of the people to keep and bear "their private arms." The only dispute was over whether a bill of rights was even necessary to protect such fundamental rights. "One of the People" replied to Coxe's article with a response called "On a Bill of Rights," which held "the very idea of a bill of rights" to be "a dishonorable one to freemen." "What should we think of a gentleman, who upon hiring a waiting-man, should say to him "my friend, please take notice, before we come together, that I shall always claim the liberty of eating when and what I please, of fishing and hunting upon my own ground, of keeping as many horses and hounds as I can maintain, and of speaking and writing any sentiments upon all subjects." As a mere servant, the government had no power to interfere with individual liberties in any manner without a specific delegation. "[A] master reserves to himself ... everything else which he has not committed to the care of those servants."[208](p.176)
"Centinel" was, of course, Samuel Bryan, author of the Pennsylvania Dissent of the Minority, which demanded recognition of the right to bear arms for defense of self, state, and country, and for hunting. By not objecting to lack of such a list of purposes in the Second Amendment, the Antifederalists must have assumed that exercise of the right to keep and bear arms would extend to all lawful purposes. By the same token, Samuel Adams and the drafters of the New Hampshire proposal did not object to the lack of an explicit exclusion of criminals from the right to keep and bear arms, because this too was understood.
Centinel's observations indicate the understanding that the Second Amendment's Militia Clause was merely declaratory and did not protect state powers to maintain militias to any appreciable degree. That Antifederalists never attacked the Right-to-Bear-Arms Clause demonstrates that was reorganized to be recognized a full and complete guarantee of individual rights to have and use private arms. Surely a storm of protest would have ensued had anyone hinted that the right only Protected a government-armed select militia.
Charon
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I disagree. I think your of good conscience Toad.
So..... Regardless of the fact that Miller keyed on the word "militia" and that the last word from the SC does NOT uphold the individual right to bear arms.
Why in the hell did our founding fathers put that stupid sentence about a well regulated militia into the amendment. What were they thinking!!???
MT, explain to me how individuals are supposed to provide guns for themselves to be used in the militia (comprised of individuals) if individuals cannot constituinally own guns.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I disagree. I think your of good conscience Toad.
So..... Regardless of the fact that Miller keyed on the word "militia" and that the last word from the SC does NOT uphold the individual right to bear arms.
Why in the hell did our founding fathers put that stupid sentence about a well regulated militia into the amendment. What were they thinking!!???
That it was possible one day for the goverment to become oppressive,and that the people's right to protect themselves from that was extremely important.
-
Reading does help....
What is a militia?
"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline."
Virginia Act of October 1785 provides for a Militia of "all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,"
This would mean that I can have a gun, but Toad and lazs are much too old :)
-
BTW, just want to mention how honored I am to have a thread named after me. Truly, a highlight of my BBS career.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
BTW, just want to mention how honored I am to have a thread named after me. Truly, a highlight of my BBS career.
It's all downhill from here.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Reading does help....
What is a militia?
"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline."
Virginia Act of October 1785 provides for a Militia of "all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,"
This would mean that I can have a gun, but Toad and lazs are much too old :)
Yes, reading does help:
Miller vs US:
These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
Lemmee see.... I'm male, I can walk all day carrying a gun over rough terrain, I can hit what I shoot at a very high percentage of the time, I'm former military so I know how to "act in concert for the common defense"...
Looks like I can have a gun... not so sure about you MT... can you hit anything if we give you one?
-
so... mt... is your wife convinced yet?
lazs
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Why in the hell did our founding fathers put that stupid sentence about a well regulated militia into the amendment. What were they thinking!!???
As has been shown here, a bit of simple research into the writings of the Founders shows exactly what they were thinking.
Only those who are dishonest can possibly pretend otherwise. Given the usage of the words in the 2nd at the time, it's clear that what was meant.
No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.
George Mason wrote the Bill of Rights; his view was shown at the Virginia Convention:
In the Virginia convention, George Mason, drafter of the Virginia Bill of Rights, accused the British of having plotted "to disarm the people that was the best and most effective way to enslave them"
George Mason:
Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.
Samuel Adams:
The said constitution shall never be construed to authorize congress to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
Pretty easy to see what the Founding Fathers thought about the right to bear arms. Only the intellectually dishonest are confused.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so... mt... is your wife convinced yet?
lazs
You kidding? She can hit a sparrow in the left eye from 1000 yds.
In United States v. Miller,4 the Court sustained a statute requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ''[w]ith 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 with that end in view.''
So according to the SC the 2nd must be read as a right to arm a militia. So this leaves only the definition of a militia.
The 1st Circuit Court agreed in 1942
Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''
or here..
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ''Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia''').
or this one.. this is really good!
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir.) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge denial of permit to carry concealed weapon, because Second Amendment is a right held by states, not by private citizens), cert. denied 117 S. Ct. 276 (1996
-
did you just quote a ruling by the ninth circuit? That is beyond funny... they are so out of touch with the rest of the country as to be a joke.
your first "Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ''Apparently, then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.''
you are affirming what we said.... if a machine gun can be proven to have a reasonable use by a militia.... We are the militia but... even if you feel the militia should be a body of people somehow tied to each other.... the 2nd states that you need the PEOPLE to be armed in order to form one and... because of that... the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.... no matter how you cut it... you need armed (uninrfringed) PEOPLE to form a milita.... they can't go from being regulated down to slinshots to being able to form a "well regulate" (well equiped) milita without the arms to do so.
lewis says the same.... at worst.... your cases point out that zip guns or slam bang pipe shotguns might be banned as they have no military use.
your cases all prove what we are saying except for the ninth circuit of Kalifornia..
I would suggest anyone not familiar with the 9th circuit do some research on them... to put it mildly... they are radical lefties.. and irrelevant... their judgements allmost allways contradict every other court in the land as can be seen by the contrast in MT's wifes own examples above...
lazs
-
Reading does help....
If you do enough of it, it does. You can also spend 15 minutes on google. Have you read through either of the links I posted, in detail, from start to finish? What are your counters to the poistions outlined in THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE OR THE POWER OF THE STATE: BEARING ARMS, ARMING MILITIAS, AND THE SECOND AMENDMENT.? Here's the conclusion:
Every term in the Second Amendment's substantive guarantee--which is not negated by its philosophical declaration about a well regulated militia--demands an individual rights interpretation. The terms "right," "the people," "keep and bear," and "infringed" apply only to persons, not states. Moreover, the Framers, supporters, and opponents of the original Constitution all agreed on the political ideal of an armed populace, and the unanimous interpretation of the Bill of Rights in Congress and by the public was that the Second Amendment guaranteed the individual right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, the very amendment which would have made explicit the state power to maintain a militia (p.207)failed completely. The language and historical intent of the Second Amendment mandates recognition of the individual right to keep and bear firearms and other personal weapons. Like those who oppose flag burning as symbolic protest, opponents of this right have the option of pressing for an amendment to a Bill of Rights no longer seen as worthwhile.
As for your Virginia Military act:
"A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline."
Virginia Act of October 1785 provides for a Militia of "all free male persons between the ages of eighteen and fifty years,"
Apparently somewhat misued in Miller since it is basically Virginia's model for developing a select militia for state use beyond basic second amendment rights. I think it also said something about having Virginia citizens "properly armed..." Apple and orange.
Do you know the differecen between a select militia and a general militia and the debate that went on about a "militia" (of either type) vs. a standing army? How about the Federalist papers? If you spend the time actually looking into the creation of the 2nd Amendment (and, I'm sorry to say, it does take time), it should be abundantly clear that the issue behind a general milita was basically an armed population that could be mustered to defend the nation, or that could stand up to any select militia or standing army, and that could enjoy the basic human right of self defense. This is discussed in great detail.
While different states before, during and after the constitution had a variety of opinions on the structure of a "militia" along federalists and anti-federalist lines (with some overlap within states), the basic concept of firearm ownership was pretty much a given, in the same manner that horse ownership wasn't really an issue when talking about potential militia cavalry.
Charon
-
It's all downhill from here.
I don't know Sandy. The debat has been civil enough. Has it gone down hill because, it's hard not to see a bias in the ACLU where this right is concerned? As much as I hate saying the word (since it is almost a cartoon icon these days) a liberal as bias?
I don't think you're a big fan of firearm ownership. Of course, you don't have to be. Similarly, a lot of people aren't fans of flag burining. But, either the rights that enable those are valid or they have become outdated and you come up with a legislative solution to nullify or modify those rights.
Charon
-
Not to mention the Department of Justice report that was commisioned I believe when klinton was in power.... The report falt out concludes that "the people" means just that.... an individual right not a collective or state right... If it doesn't then we are in trouble with the other amendments.
MT.. get her to read the links charon posted and then she might instruct you to change "your" mind.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Charon
I don't know Sandy. The debat has been civil enough. Has it gone down hill because, it's hard not to see a bias in the ACLU where this right is concerned? As much as I hate saying the word (since it is almost a cartoon icon these days) a liberal as bias?
I don't think you're a big fan of firearm ownership. Of course, you don't have to be. Similarly, a lot of people aren't fans of flag burining. But, either the rights that enable those are valid or they have become outdated and you come up with a legislative solution to nullify or modify those rights.
Charon
Don't get me wrong. I view firearms as tools. I grew up in a rural area and we always had shotguns and rifles, but we had no use for handguns. I just can't get excited about them the way a lot of other people do.
-
You don't have to be excited about firearms to recognize that our rights to have them must be maintained.
I'm a guy, so any law that says women can't vote wouldn't affect me, right? That doesn't mean that I wouldn't fight to keep that ammendment on the books and effective, because it's important.
Same with the Illinois Nazis and their right to speak. I hate 'em, but I'll fight for their right to excercise the 1st ammendment, because it's important. The rights of the majority are never in danger, the true measure of a society is how it protects the rights of the minority.
-
I was very lucky that my constitutional law professor took the 2nd amendment seriously. Indeed, 99% of con law classes taught in law schools do not cover the 2nd amendment. That being said, my con law prof was, to put it mildly, a liberal ivory tower type. Even he, said that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right. Indeed, when one of classmates tried to assert the "collective rights model" he browbeat her (academically that is) into submission and tears.
The issues that arise in the modern 2nd amendment arguments have been well fleshed out here. But perhaps I can shed some more legal light, and focus the debate. Miller is not considered good law by any well informed con law professor, nor by many federal judges. Generally it is considered to be an uncitable case (just as Korematsu is). Although technically "good law" in that it has never been overruled, it will never be cited by the sup ct, and the fact that it was, essentially, an ex-parte case makes it that much more distasteful.
As for the 9th cir, they have said, and it has become circuit law, that the 2nd amendment is indeed a collective right held by the states. Recently, however, the 5th circuit in United States v. Emerson held that the 2nd amendment is unequivocally an individual right. This is what as known as a circuit split; generally a fast track to cert to the Supremes. However, the Supremes have ducked this one--cert denials in all cases have been unanimous.
The real debate, at least in con law circles are the contours of the 2nd amendment--what does it exactly protect. All agree that the states and feds (to a lesser degree) can prohibit felons from possessing arms (note only firearms). However, can congress prohibit measdemeants from owning firearms? The answer, at least in congress' eyes is yes, google the launetberg amendment if you dont believe me--I tried to convince the fed judge i worked for to strike it down (he declined my invite). What about licensing? I think that we could look to the abortion debate and the answers there for a good analog--e.g. Casey v. planned parenthood and use the obstacles test.
Oh, as for the text of the amendment. A militia by both federal and state law is every able bodied man between he ages of 18 and 45 (sometimes older) every state in the union has a law to this effect (look for unorganized militia in the index). The feds have the same law. Note the national guard is not a militia. As for the words "well regulated", in 18th century English this meant disciplined--not regulated in the post-new deal sense the word has taken on. The rest of the text probably mirrors our modern understanding.
And, lastly, the bazooka argument (this also applies to the howitzer argument ect. Those generally are explosive devices not covered by the text "arms." These argument are generally fallacious as being "slippery slope" and are unresponsive to say assault weapon bans.
If anyone needs cites, or wants some cites to the latest scholarly articles just pm me, or let me know on this form.
-
Thank you jEEzy, that was very enlightening.
And it kind of made my point. People of good conscience can disagree on the issue. I think the fact that it is a Circuit split points this out nicely.
Now go shoot something lazs.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
You don't have to be excited about firearms to recognize that our rights to have them must be maintained.
I can recognize it. I'm just not going to get passionate over it. The arguments for and against guns in this country always seem to be one extreme versus the other.
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.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
And it kind of made my point. People of good conscience can disagree on the issue. I think the fact that it is a Circuit split points this out nicely.
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.
My 2 cents is thus: to read the 2nd amnd as a collective right granted to the states to effectively arm a militia would contradict the very tenents of the constitution itself. Namely, the constitution is built on the assumtion that the people hold rights before the existence of the government, and that the people grant the government some of these rights "in order to form a more perfect union[.]" The most elequent exhibition of this concept was penned in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[.]" The collective rights model turns this concept on its head, and in essence posits that the right to bear arms is a right given to the govts for them to cede to the people as they wish--an untenable position, both given the text of the 2nd amnd and the overall aim of the constitution as a whole.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Miler vs US, Decided MAY 15, 1939
World War I - 1918 Winchester Modely 97 Trench gun
(http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/win97-sm.jpg)
World War II - 1941 Browning A-5 Short barreled shotgun
(http://world.guns.ru/shotgun/rem11-sm.jpg)
VietNam - 1960's Winchester Modle 12 Trench gun
(http://wapahani.com/winm12~1.jpg )
It's obvious Miller was wrongly decided. Well, to anyone with an open mind.
And none of those are sawed off shotguns. How about a pic of a sawed off similar to Miller's?
Also what tactical military value does a sawed off shotgun have?
Heck, show me a battle where sawed off shotguns were used as a favored weapon.
-
Heck ride a horse into battle and you will see about 54 times the need for a sawed off shotty
-
Oh BTW. I do not favor the govt banning personal firearms (semi, full auto, single shot, etc.), even sawed off shotguns.
I do support banning personal ownership of WMDs, Bombs, Grenades, Antitank weapons, Tanks, etc ;)
-
Tanks??? Saburo do you also support banning of private ownership of fighter airplanes?
-
Disarmed, no.
One with full armaments and avionics, yes.
Heck, I would love having my own F16 just for the thrill of flying it. I wouldn't find it nec to have it with weapons and ECM capability.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
And none of those are sawed off shotguns. How about a pic of a sawed off similar to Miller's?
Also what tactical military value does a sawed off shotgun have?
Heck, show me a battle where sawed off shotguns were used as a favored weapon.
OK, here's the standard:
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.
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.
-
Also what tactical military value does a sawed off shotgun have?
Hmmm... ask the guys in the 10th Mountain......
Military Firearms -- LSS (Lightweight Shotgun System) (http://www.olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_shotgun_lss.php)
The main application for a shotgun is MOUT, military operations in urban settings.
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/firearms_shotgun_lss_02.jpg)
-
Oh, one other thing about Miller V US:
"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 of efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."
The bootleggers might have won their case by arguing that sawed-off shotguns were used by U.S. infantrymen in World War I. However, neither Miller, Layton nor their attorney showed up in court. Only the prosecution presented its case.
Lacking sufficient evidence to rule on the case, the justices sent it back to the lower court for additional fact-finding. But the fact-finding never took place. Jack Miller was shot dead by unknown assailants. Frank Layton pleaded guilty and got four years probation.
Might have been real interesting if Miller/Layton had had a top-notch attorney that showed up to present the judges with some evidence of shotgun use in the military.
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/firearms_shotgun_lss_config3.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 ouncesless 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.
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/firearms_shotgun_lss_config2.jpg)
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.
-
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sawed-off_shotgun) 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.
-
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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?
(http://www.olive-drab.com/images/firearms_shotgun_lss_config3.jpg)
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
The moment it happens...
Oh man, I'm getting giddy with anticipation. :D
-
saburo..you are being very dense
"no aimed fire"
lmfingao ...If you point that barrel in your direction ...are you moving?...hell yes
-
Perhaps this is the difference between a 'precision approach' and a 'non-precision' approach to an airport. The precision approach, of course, incorporates both vertical and horizontal guidance, while the non-precision is usually just horizontal.
With a shotgun, precision is less important, but you're still getting a vital 'service'.
-
Originally posted by Toad
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.
Sorry Toad, I should have dated that. It was from a 4th circuit ruling in 1994. So, it was true at the time. Now we have 2 circuits saying collective, or at least agreeing with collective.
-
The Circuits can and do disagree. We've seen that on multiple aspects of the Constitution.
When they do disagree, where is the final ruling made? At the Supreme Court level.
Miller v US clearly supports the "individual right" of Americans to keep and bear arms.
Lewis V US (in 1980) is another SC decision that supports the "individual right" and it cited Miller in doing so.
Even more fundamental, however, is Jeezy's point, which nails it down perfectly and bears repeating:
Namely, the constitution is built on the assumtion that the people hold rights before the existence of the government, and that the people grant the government some of these rights "in order to form a more perfect union."
The most elequent exhibition of this concept was penned in the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
The collective rights model turns this concept on its head, and in essence posits that the right to bear arms is a right given to the govts for them to cede to the people as they wish--an untenable position, both given the text of the 2nd amnd and the overall aim of the constitution as a whole.
The US government does not give us our rights. No way; Jefferson's ghost would be wielding his shotgun pistol right in line next to me if that were so.
We the people cede rights to the government.
If we ever all forget that.... and it would seem some of my fellow citizens HAVE forgotten that... this Republic will have failed completely.
As I said, I hope the SC takes Emerson. It's time to settle who actually holds and who actually cedes the rights in this country.
.... and if it turns out the government holds and cedes all the rights, then by Cod, it's time for Jefferson's long overdue "rebellion every 20 years".
If they gut the 2nd, the rest of the Bill of Rights won't be far behind.
The recent "medical marijuana" and "eminent domain" cases already show the appetite of the Federalists for ever more power.
-
there is no way that the 2nd can be interpreted as a collective right. I'm with toad.... let's get it out in the open and done with.
For the supreme's it is lose lose... if they give an honest ruling it will open up the country for lawsuits on bogus gun control laws and make much of the federal and state government agencies useless and unnecessary...
If the vote as a collective right and that can be taken or given at the grace of state and federal governments..... there will be a huge influx of restrictive gun control and confiscation laws.... using rigestration to round up weapons... it is not ureasonable to expect thousands of Waco's.
lazs
-
Toad,
We are going around in circles here arguing about how red the apples are and how orange the oranges are.
Check your email.
-
I don't believe we are.
I'll check e-mail directly but let me ask you two questions:
Do you feel Miller V US grants an individual right to firearms ownership?
Do you agree that use of the LSS by 10th Mountain puts short shotguns and shotgun pistols in common use?
Those are straight up "yes/no" questions.
-
Originally posted by Charon
I agree with 90 percent of what the ACLU does, since it supports a more libertarian individual rights perspective. But there is obviously a certain degree of true liberalism in the organization as well. Some individual rights are more important than others.
Charon
What indiviual libertarian rights are they defending for an organization like NAMBLA!
For those who are not aware, They are the North American Man Boy Love Association. One of their members was convicted of murdering a 10 yr old boy after reading information provided by NAMBLA on how to seduce young boys. He stated in court that their materials encouraged him to commit his crime. They are being sued by the parents
-
Originally posted by Toad
I don't believe we are.
I'll check e-mail directly but let me ask you two questions:
Those are straight up "yes/no" questions.
Do you feel Miller V US grants an individual right to firearms ownership?
It is a bad decision by the courts. I do not agree with that decision. It is absolutely idiotic that they want to ban a weapon made shorter, yet they have no problems with handguns?
No, I am not proposing a ban on handguns.
Do you agree that use of the LSS by 10th Mountain puts short shotguns and shotgun pistols in common use?
Overall, no.
I have yet to see them being used outside of its original combined weapons system. Combined, it is not a short weapon.
And here we go around in circles again.
I have yet to see them using the pistol version. I doubt we'll ever see it used as the pistol version if the butt stock were available. Big difference in recoil control.
Several hundred of the LSS were first deployed in 2004 to the 10th Mountain Division (18th Airborne Corps) in Afghanistan. They were initially issued one per squad, although the plan was to get one in every fire team.
What's is the staus now of the LSS.
How many of our forces are being issued this weapon system outside of the 10th Mountain Division?
I classify the shotgun as the same as the M203 grenade launcher. Not a "common" use weapon. It has its specific mission in support of the main battle rifle/assault rifle, but it will not be deployed in place of the main weapon.
Now my turn on the yes or no:
Has a sawed off double barrel shotgun ever been introduced and used by any military from say 1900 to present?
If yes, would you consider that as common use?
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
saburo..you are being very dense
"no aimed fire"
lmfingao ...If you point that barrel in your direction ...are you moving?...hell yes
Next time you go to an outdoor range and fire that 12 gauge or any weapon, don't aim, just point. you might just be surprised how much you miss what you're trying to hit.
First shot btw.
-
You have to take distances into effect and what kind of choke you have.
A short barrel could easily hit something at 10 yards. No effort involved.
A choked 25 inch barrel will blow a nice cylinder out of whatever you want at 10 yards.
It will be harder to shoot, but would be easier to hit things farther out.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You have to take distances into effect and what kind of choke you have.
A short barrel could easily hit something at 10 yards. No effort involved.
A choked 25 inch barrel will blow a nice cylinder out of whatever you want at 10 yards.
It will be harder to shoot, but would be easier to hit things farther out.
LOL, go ahead and try it.
Take a sawed off shotgun without front sight and put some lethal hits on that 10 yard target.
You've got 2 shots.
Now take a regular shotgun (short barrel) and use aimed fire.
You'd be surprised at the dispersion of the shot.
You'd also be surprised at how useless the sawed off is.
-
Originally posted by jEEZY
Actually...the collective rights [should read induvidual right] 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 [should read induvidual right] model while researching an article he wanted to write on the collective rights model. In my view, cogent research clearly indicates an induvidual right in the 2nd amendment.
Originally posted by midnight Target
Assuming you meant individual right?
Or did you?
Whoops I did mean induvidual right--sorry...
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
What indiviual libertarian rights are they defending for an organization like NAMBLA!
For those who are not aware, They are the North American Man Boy Love Association. One of their members was convicted of murdering a 10 yr old boy after reading information provided by NAMBLA on how to seduce young boys. He stated in court that their materials encouraged him to commit his crime. They are being sued by the parents
So when kids blame their violent actions on video games, the video games are at fault or somehow responsible?
How about that sick individual above being who he is, is the guilty one?
You're trying to blame the ACLU?
Did they come to the guy's defense at his murder trial?
Did NAMBLA show the guy how to murder?
Sheesh.
BTW don't even go there if you think I support pedophilia.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
What indiviual libertarian rights are they defending for an organization like NAMBLA!
The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.
-
What indiviual libertarian rights are they defending for an organization like NAMBLA!
For those who are not aware, They are the North American Man Boy Love Association. One of their members was convicted of murdering a 10 yr old boy after reading information provided by NAMBLA on how to seduce young boys. He stated in court that their materials encouraged him to commit his crime. They are being sued by the parents
I don't know... free speech I guess...
Apparently two individuals committed a horrible crime. They are in prison for committing that crime. No criminal conspiracy involving NAMBLA existed. They were not acting under secret or implied orders from NAMBLA leadership. And, apparently, the Web site didn't encourage the activities these individuals committed. Though I don’t know if it would really change things even if it did. Sounds like a perp trying to cop out of being responsible for his actions.
And while most of us find people like Nazis or pedophiles repugnant, and they don’t have a right to act criminally on their beliefs, they do have the same rights to express personal beliefs as anybody else. There are people who consider extreme conservative or liberal though to be no different from NAMBLA, as far as posing a threat to America. People have vastly different outlooks on what constitutes “extreme” and acceptable, right and wrong. I personally consider that opportunist bellybutton Michael Savage to be extremely dangerous, and a greater real threat than NAMBLA (a pedophile is a pedophile -- no Web site is needed to recruit one into the fold). His language is extreme where “liberals” are concerned (he makes Rush look like Teddy Kennedy) and his hatefulness is dangerously close to a call for action. I would not be surprised if one of his many listeners acts to save America by trying to kill one of his many targets. But, he shouldn’t be sued either if that were to happen. Freedom isn’t easy, neat or always pleasing.
Charon
-
LOL, go ahead and try it.
I have.
I personally own 4 shotguns. 2 standard pumps, 1 nice over and under and one "Tactical" I guess you could say.
I have shot short shotguns before.
Do you really think I was just coming out of left field with that?
-
BTW, why I am so Second Amendment lately, is that I have crap like this happening all around me, and when people call them on it it gets ignored by a media that does have, if not a bias, then a deep ignorance of the legal gun owner position and rights beyond the 1st amendment. Check this out. It's actually funny in a Reefer Madness kind of way. Let’s play spot the lies and deception.
http://www.icarry.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3
The Brady Campaign makes Baghdad Bob look good where factuality is concerned, but nobody in the fourth estate bothers to fact check any of it. The NRA is 100 times more factual in its arguments, but they have been so solidly labeled Gun Nuts (with some justification, IMO) that they are the ultimate ad hominem in any argument. That's why some support from ACLU would be helpful.
In this case, Ryg’s district is just a few miles north of mine. My local Republican State rep is no better, and the local federal Republican rep for my district got a D rating from NRA. The enhanced Crook County “assault weapons” ban was fortunately just shelved saving my $700 collector M1 Carbine (though I might have been safe regardless), because they were caught in time to react while sneaking it though a committee that usually doesn't handle gun issues.
For me, it is very much a personal right that is under attack on a monthly basis. I don’t expect to have to use a firearm to defend my family, but I want to be able to do that should the need arise. As New Orleans shows, we are not living in some Star Trek Federation fantasy world, as much as we would have liked to believe that. I also enjoy shooting as a recreational activity. I grew up around guns (first 22 at age 7, taught safety as a way of life); seven years in the USAR where a main part of my job was weapons instruction and no shame in the solid traditions of safe, responsible and legal gun ownership. But I have to watch my back because Daley would rather spend money on new parks and a Disneyland downtown than address inner city poverty (gun violence among criminals draws embarrassing attention to the neglect). A useless band-aid that screws with my rights in the process. And, in the suburbs the socially liberal but fiscally conservative (have to scratch your head about that these days) “Republicans” are looking to solve gun violence problems that are non existent in their districts to make uninformed (and actively misinformed) people feel better. Or because national politicians lack the guts (or personal political incentives) to finally address both poverty and the wasteful and failed War on Drugs .
Charon
-
Interesting excerpt from ACLU site:
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms.
(I believe this is one issue I can passionately agree with lazs on.)
A) Yes. Why not allow individuals to possess any arms?
B) There are plenty of examples of common people offering serious resistance to the U.S. military using small arms augmented with no more than an RPG or improvised explosives. The Vietcong come to mind, as does Somalia and the current insurection in Iraq. In fact, a well small-armed citizenry can be very effective against a technologically superior force if defending their own homes, streets, or towns is the objective.
-
Are these intentional?
Originally posted by Charon
Let’s
Ryg’s
don’t
“Republicans”
-
Hmmm… Let’s rag, don’t Republicans? If so then yes, I am ragging :) Look at that link to see what passes for 2nd Amendment debate in this state, and it does impact me. I even left out the televised quote from Chicago’s “Top Cop” where he said you could empty the 30-round magazine on a legally available “Assault Rifle” with two squeezes of the trigger.
I guess guns are just my big yellow Exterra. A lot of people don’t like big SUVs. They endanger the lives of responsible people driving a proper small car by reducing visibility on the highway and increasing the risk in an accident. They are not even particularly safe for their drivers and passengers. And nobody needs one. They are a poor tool compared to both a truck and minivan, which do their standard functions more efficiently. If used for so called off road "recreation," they tend to damage the natural environment. They burn Iraq-invading quantities of fossil fuels, put us at greater risk to Islamic terrorists, pollute the environment at an accelerated rate and help set up a class distinction on the nations highways that can’t be good for society. They aren’t even protected as a formal right. I believe they are even the vehicle of choice for gangbangers and hip-hop artists. In the hands of a woman driver putting on lipstick, or a male stock broker conducting an intense cell-phone conference call, they are death machines pure and simple. The clock is ticking my friend… :)
Charon
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Are these intentional?
Seems like it might be a font. Just guessing.
-
Every anti gun nut makes the assumption that soldiers aren't people and would do anything they were ordered to.
So any resistance would be futile anyway.
-
Hmm, are you seeing issues with the apostrophe and quotes? I get it in reverse sometimes. It might be a mozilla thing. They show up accurate at my end.
Charon
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
LOL, go ahead and try it.
Take a sawed off shotgun without front sight and put some lethal hits on that 10 yard target.
You've got 2 shots.
Now take a regular shotgun (short barrel) and use aimed fire.
You'd be surprised at the dispersion of the shot.
You'd also be surprised at how useless the sawed off is.
First define "sawed off". What length? To date, I've seen no info on the length of the barrel in the Miller case other than that it was "less than 18 inches".
Try any barrel length you like over a foot on a man sized target at 10 yards and use the standard OO buckshot round with 9 pellets. I think you'll find it quite effective.
The Army's new LSS system... available with pistol grip has about an 8"-10" barrel with no sights. It that's ineffective... why did they make it?
In fact, at 10 yards I can put about 7-8 buckshot into a man sized target from a 20" 12 ga Model 97 Winchester. And that's "point and shoot". I'd be willing to go try it from the hip if you like.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
I have.
I personally own 4 shotguns. 2 standard pumps, 1 nice over and under and one "Tactical" I guess you could say.
I have shot short shotguns before.
Do you really think I was just coming out of left field with that?
How'd it go with the double barrel sawed off?
Was it as accurate?
Aimed fire?
Now because you've fired some shotguns, doesn't make you an expert if you've not fired a sawed off double barrel.
And yes, you'd be coming out of left field if you haven't.
And if you live in the SF bay area, let me know the next time you're going shooting. I'd like to see nicely grouped shot pattern from a short barrel, unchoked, shot off the hip @10yards.
We're not talking bird hunting. We're talking lethal shot grouping capable of stopping an enemy.
Then we'll compare it to my SigSauer P220-45 and L1a1 (with it's 16.25" Congo front end).
We'll set up multiple targets/distances.
Show me how a bouble barreled sawed off is better.
-
Originally posted by Toad
First define "sawed off". What length? To date, I've seen no info on the length of the barrel in the Miller case other than that it was "less than 18 inches".
Try any barrel length you like over a foot on a man sized target at 10 yards and use the standard OO buckshot round with 9 pellets. I think you'll find it quite effective.
The Army's new LSS system... available with pistol grip has about an 8"-10" barrel with no sights. It that's ineffective... why did they make it?
In fact, at 10 yards I can put about 7-8 buckshot into a man sized target from a 20" 12 ga Model 97 Winchester. And that's "point and shoot". I'd be willing to go try it from the hip if you like.
It has a Pitaniny rail. You do realize what that's for?
How many times has that been actually used in that pistol configuration by our troops?
What can you do with a 10" unchoked barrel?
That's what I'd like to see ;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
First define "sawed off". What length? To date, I've seen no info on the length of the barrel in the Miller case other than that it was "less than 18 inches".
I missed answering this.
Sawed off is sawing tp make something usually as small as possible lengthwise.
Usually involves cutting the barrel to end of the forestock and cutting most of the buttstock off. It is effective for point blank damage.
Now my turn on the yes or no:
Has a sawed off double barrel shotgun ever been introduced and used by any military from say 1900 to present?
If yes, would you consider that as common use?
Second time I'm asking.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
It is a bad decision by the courts.
[/b]
It may be a bad decision but it's in the record.
Now, for the record, do YOU think Miller defines the 2nd as an individual or collective right. That's actually what I asked.
Originally posted by SaburoS
Overall, no.
I have yet to see them being used outside of its original combined weapons system. Combined, it is not a short weapon.
[/b]
Well then of course you would say I have the right to own the entire setup, the M4A1 carbine with the LSS attachment, Barrel length: 7.75 in (197 mm) ?
I could have one of those then? :)
I have yet to see them using the pistol version. I doubt we'll ever see it used as the pistol version if the butt stock were available.
[/b]
If they issue it, how many do they have to issue to qualify in your opinion?
What's is the staus now of the LSS.
How many of our forces are being issued this weapon system outside of the 10th Mountain Division?
[/b]
I don't know. There was supposed to be further investigation last May/June but there's nothing out on it yet.
I can tell you the competition for the military shotgun market is picking up... and the barrels are going to be less than 18".
Remington has a range that includes the 870P pump, 11-87P gas-operated shotguns and the new 870 Modular Combat Shotgun (MCS). The MCS centers around the proprietary REM LOC quick change stock system and allows the weapon to be configured with a 10-inch breaching, 14-inch tactical or 18-inch rifle sighted barrel, pistol grips or stocks and magazine tube capacities to meet changing tactical situations quickly and without tools...
...MCS shotgun systems have just returned from successful combat trials in and around Baghdad. In addition the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force and the Israeli Ministry of Defence are reportedly showing interest in the MCS....
The Italian firm Fabbrica Bresciana Armi S.p.A. (FABARM) offers the pump FP6 and Tactical Semi-Auto, which are imported and distributed by Heckler & Koch (HK)....For early entry use, HK offers a 14-inch barrel...
...The Knights Armament Company (KAC) Masterkey is one example of a derivative design, a 12-gauge Remington 870P with a barrel shortened to 10-inches and a four-round capacity (3 + 1). While this is designed to fit under the KAC Modular Weapon System using MIL-STD-1913 Picatinny rails, a standalone stock module is available....
Seems pretty clear that shotguns are going to come into much more "common use" in the military AND that barrels shorter than 18" will be the norm.
Has a sawed off double barrel shotgun ever been introduced and used by any military from say 1900 to present?
Not to my knowledge. In that period the standard was riot guns with 20" barrels for military use.
However, since the M4A1 carbine with some manufacturer's shotgun attachement...LSS, Remington, Knight Armamament.... is going to come into "common use" in the near future, I'm sure you'll agree that I have a right to such a weapon... right?
Just a yes or no. :)
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Usually involves cutting the barrel to end of the forestock and cutting most of the buttstock off. It is effective for point blank damage.
[/b]
20" barrels are generally considered "point and shoot" lethal with 00 buckshot out to ~20 yards.
I've shot a .410 pistol... they were legal at one time and are still around. ;) I can vouch for their effectiveness head shooting pheasants in the ditch at more than 10 yards with 67 pellets of #4 shot in a 2 1/2" load. Pheasant heads aren't too big, either.
(http://www.4-10.freeuk.com/stevenspistol1a.jpg)
Second time I'm asking.
And you got your answer; sorry it took me a while. Lots of posts to read and answer.]
-
Toad,
I feel any law abiding American w/o a criminal background, of sound mind and age should be able to keep and bear any personal (semi/select, single, etc) rifle, shotgun(sawed off too), pistol, etc.
They should not be allowed to have a M203 Grenade launcher, Claymore, Stinger Antiaircraft.....heck I'm going down the same road. Accidental/michievious discharge can do a hell of a lot of damage compared to a "regular" firearm. Gotta ban those.
I am against my govt banning things that don't really help the citizens in general. It just doesn't work.
Had just one passenger in each of the planes had a Sig, Colt, Glock, etc pistol, we'd still have the Twin Towers up.
I'll bet you one thing. Those passengers would have wished to have a gun in their situation.
Dallas Cafe.
San Ysidro.
101 California.
Could have been a lot less deadly if regular citizens could conceal carry.
My argument has been that "Common use" has not been proven for a sawed off double barrel shotgun. That POS weapon I wouldn't own if legal and was given to me. Now the SPAS12 I really like and would own that one. Sweet shooter. The Sawed off shotgun being banned is stupid law. That was a given.
-
From GunCite:
In Colonial times "arms" usually meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon.
Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
I think this is exactly what the Founders meant. They used "arms" in the way and with the meaning it had at the time they wrote the Bill of Rights.
Generally speaking, to me it means any weapons that are commonly issued to the individual soldier.
If everyone gets a pistol, pistols are OK. If everyone gets an M4 carbine, M4's are OK. At the time, Grenadiers were considered to use "ordinance" so grenades are out.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It may be a bad decision but it's in the record.
Now, for the record, do YOU think Miller defines the 2nd as an individual or collective right. That's actually what I asked.
[/b]
Well then of course you would say I have the right to own the entire setup, the M4A1 carbine with the LSS attachment, Barrel length: 7.75 in (197 mm) ?
I could have one of those then? :)
[/b]
If they issue it, how many do they have to issue to qualify in your opinion?
[/b]
I don't know. There was supposed to be further investigation last May/June but there's nothing out on it yet.
I can tell you the competition for the military shotgun market is picking up... and the barrels are going to be less than 18".
Seems pretty clear that shotguns are going to come into much more "common use" in the military AND that barrels shorter than 18" will be the norm.
Not to my knowledge. In that period the standard was riot guns with 20" barrels for military use.
However, since the M4A1 carbine with some manufacturer's shotgun attachement...LSS, Remington, Knight Armamament.... is going to come into "common use" in the near future, I'm sure you'll agree that I have a right to such a weapon... right?
Just a yes or no. :)
Hell, I don't care if they had 2" barrel shotgun pistols. You, as a law abiding American should have the right to purchase and own it. The Miller decision is wrong. Heck any attorney that knew weapon systems would be able to demonstrate how very limited in application the sawed off double barrel was. Would have not been worth banning.
I came in midthread and saw what I thought was a connection of military value of a sawed off double barrel shotgun. My argument has been how it's not. I even made clear that I didn't think it should be banned.
-
charon.. I agree with you completely... I have allways been a "gun nut".... part of the gun culture. At 9 I was shooting up to 500 rounds a day out of an old hi standard 22 pistol and hitting things the men had touble hitting with a rifle....
I never went out for sports and still don't watch sports at all... I don't get drunk and drive home from sporting events like the "sports nuts".... I reload thousands of rounds of ammo while "TV nuts" watch the latest survivor show and the same old commercials... I don't tear up the landscape like the "4 wheel nuts"...
I don't want to place restrictions on these guys but I want to carry and shoot my firearms... I read about em and work on em and shoot em and then load more ammo for em... I may be outdoors plinking at tin cans while others are staring at the big screen view of million dollar a year druggies fighting over a few yards of turf or 7' tall mutants putting balls in a hoop...
I work on hot rods and drive em... I don't watch races. I would rather go outside and shoot at cans than watch a sporting event.... I would rather make a new alternator bracket or fabricate motor mounts or go to a gun show...
I would rather visit a friend in his garage and help him put his new 500 inch big block together or go look at his newest firearm..
I don't watch the indoctrinatinization on the news channel and don't read the rags they put on the newstand.... and when I do... the culture shock is stunning.
I am the enemy.
lazs
-
saburo..i fire atleast 3,000 rounds of 12 guage a year
To say a sawed off shotgun is not lethal is rediculous ..again
If you can honestly say ..a sawed off shotgun is not a lethal..your a dolt...If you say its not a very good close range wepaon..again..dolt
You want to shoot at targets 30 feet away?..ya ..do nto use a sawed off..
If you want to shoot somthn around a 90% corner in a cave or a building.....YA...give me a sawed off any day..to what ..a 1911...or a m4a1?...Come on..
Why do you find it so hard to beleive that at point blank ranges a sawed off is your best weapon?..AH!!! IS ee cause now you say atleats 10 yards away?...thats assinine
OH!!! now i see..you want to change your thesis?..Now it cant be just a "sawed off" but it has to be a double barrel shorty? IF its a semi -auto shorty is that too different for you?..Is that much more lethal?
Common use?....Whats common use?..is the sniper rifle common use?
this is funnee
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
saburo..i fire atleast 3,000 rounds of 12 guage a year
To say a sawed off shotgun is not lethal is rediculous ..again
If you can honestly say ..a sawed off shotgun is not a lethal..your a dolt...If you say its not a very good close range wepaon..again..dolt
You want to shoot at targets 30 feet away?..ya ..do nto use a sawed off..
If you want to shoot somthn around a 90% corner in a cave or a building.....YA...give me a sawed off any day..to what ..a 1911...or a m4a1?...Come on..
Why do you find it so hard to beleive that at point blank ranges a sawed off is your best weapon?..AH!!! IS ee cause now you say atleats 10 yards away?...thats assinine
OH!!! now i see..you want to change your thesis?..Now it cant be just a "sawed off" but it has to be a double barrel shorty? IF its a semi -auto shorty is that too different for you?..Is that much more lethal?
Common use?....Whats common use?..is the sniper rifle common use?
this is funnee
What was the favored weapon of the Tunnel Rats in 'Nam?
Dude, where have I said a designed short barrel tactical shotgun didn't have its place in the military. That type as well as regular ones do have their place.
If you actually learned to read, you'd see I said no such thing.
You're going to go into battle with a 2-shot capability, door to door as your main weapon?
You've been watching too much Hollywood as to the value of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun.
Yes, at 30' you lose a lot of lethality as the dispersion is greater than it should be for reliable one-shot stoppage.
It is good at point blank, door hinges, locks etc.
For combat there are so many better weapons (including other shotguns) for the job.
Take a 10", 16", 20", then 24" barreled shotgun and shoot then from point blank range and work out from there out to 30'. See with your own eyes what happens with dispersion of the shot.
Maybe you'll realise why no Army has adapted the sawed off double barrel shotgun as a weapon to use in military ops.
You still haven't shown it.
BTW, can it with the "dolts" and what ever other insults you wish to throw out. You have yet to prove your point.
Dang it's like arguing with a bunch of liberal politicians on the assault weapons ban. "Oh it looks like." "Oh it could be."....dang very frustrating here.
Your reading comprehension is wanting.
You've got more than two enemy around that corner, you better have something more than a 2 shot capability.
I'm not the one looking like a "dolt" in this thread.
-
If I were clearing buildings in an urban setting a sawed off shotgun might just be the ideal choice.... at least for one of the members of the team...
I would go with a striker revolving shotgun but... a side by side would be pretty good too... I would trust getting off the second shot with a side by side or over under a lot more than the horror of an adreniline induced short stroke jam with a pump gun or failure to feed with a self shucker..
I would not feel at any disadvantage with a sawed off shotgun side by side in that situation...
lazs
-
ok..i apologize for the dolt comment..
I think you are a moron for saying...shoot at a target at 10 yds ..and see what you hit....no sheite
We are talking about POINT BLANK...."trench guns"
as soon as you try your.."10 yards" 30 feet crap..I laugh at you..We are not saying it works for 30 FEET
YA..a 12 gauge shorty is a horrible and useless weapon and could never see service in a war setting...or any setting
For my self I would glady use a shorty 12 guage for home/close combat defense..Great spread ..good hitting power..and minimal secondary penetration...So you dont shoot the folks 2 rooms over
-
Originally posted by GreenCloud
ok..i apologize for the dolt comment..
I think you are a moron for saying...shoot at a target at 10 yds ..and see what you hit....no sheite
We are talking about POINT BLANK...."trench guns"
as soon as you try your.."10 yards" 30 feet crap..I laugh at you..We are not saying it works for 30 FEET
YA..a 12 gauge shorty is a horrible and useless weapon and could never see service in a war setting...or any setting
For my self I would glady use a shorty 12 guage for home/close combat defense..Great spread ..good hitting power..and minimal secondary penetration...So you dont shoot the folks 2 rooms over
Jeebus dude! How about you actually pay attn to what I'm actually saying here! We are actually on the same damn side on this argument.
Now for the record:
A short barrel could easily hit something at 10 yards. No effort involved.
I didn't bring up the 10yard/30ft thing IIRC
So who's the moron?
The person that thinks the Sawed off double barrel is effective at that range or you for not comprehending what I've been saying?
Seems you are agreeing the value of lethal damage at 30ft of a sawed off double barrel is rather low.
You'll agree that 2 round capacity is also low for military ops?
Here is my position in a nutshell:
I feel it is wrong to base lawful gun ownership on the military "common use" criteria.
I feel any and all shotguns including sawed off double barrel should not be banned even though the sawed off double barerel shotgun has yet to be used by our military or police forces. I have never seen military or police ops where the good guys used em. Would be too limiting in those circumstances.
OTOH, I don't feel we have a right to own M203 grenade launchers even though they have actually been used by our military in actual military ops.
There is a reason why the Steven's double barrel sawed off shotgun has never been adapted by our military forces both officially and unofficially.
This fact isn't because I say so, it is what it is.
For the home defense scene, yeah the shotgun is tough to beat especially if intimidation is to be taken into account. The sawed off double barrel is extremely intimidating (maybe that's why it's been disproportionately used in Hollywood movies). That's a personal choice that should be left to the law abiding INDIVIDUAL, not the govt.
For the home if I had to choose a shotgun, I'd rather have the 8-shot preban Binelli Tactical or a SPAS12. Short enough for free movement in the house, but still a better/tighter shot pattern than the Sawed off Double.
I still prefer my SigSauer P220-45 w/tritium night sights though.
LOL, again, quit being a clown. Now you bring in the "moron" label when in fact you've miscomprehended what I've been saying. THAT is your being a "moron". Hint: Don't argue with me on this gun issue in this thread. We're on the same side.;)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Now, for the record, do YOU think Miller defines the 2nd as an individual or collective right. That's actually what I asked.
collective.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
collective.
Do you think any other of the first ten amendments refer to and protect a collective right of a group or organization instead of an individual citizen's right?
-
collective
Why?
-
The 9th Circuit told me so.
-
Mt.... have you read anything the supremes said in miller? they pretty much said that he could have any gun he wanted if he could prove it was useful as an "arm".... He was not a part of any militia except in the sense of the meaning as it was understood by the framers of the constitution. They pretty much agreed that he was indeed a part of the militia but said that he didn't need a sawed off shotgun because it was useless to him in his capacity as a militiaman.... therefore... it was not an arm protected by the right to keep and bear arms.
Do you think that it is a good idea that anytime the "people" is used in the bill of rights that it be construed as a collective right?
lazs
-
the ninth circuit told you that the supremes ruling in the miller case meant that it was a collective right? Or... the ninth circuit told you what you want to hear so you are gonna ignore the miller case?
lazs
-
in Miller, the Supreme Court wrote that the obvious purpose of the right to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of state militias and that the guarantee of that right must be interpreted and applied with that end in view. What could be a clearer rejection of the individual rights view? Even Senator Feingold, who indicated his own personal agreement with the individual rights view, conceded in questioning Judge Roberts, that the Supreme Court in Miller indicated that it saw the right to bear arms as a collective right."
Like I said over and over... People of good conscience can disagree.
-
edit: not worth it anymore
-
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.
Plainly enough except for a bunch of deceitful lawyers of "good conscience".
-
Originally posted by Charon
edit: not worth it anymore
Does this mean I win the internet?
:D
Nevermind... I'm going out shooting.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
How'd it go with the double barrel sawed off?
Was it as accurate?
Aimed fire?
Now because you've fired some shotguns, doesn't make you an expert if you've not fired a sawed off double barrel.
And yes, you'd be coming out of left field if you haven't.
And if you live in the SF bay area, let me know the next time you're going shooting. I'd like to see nicely grouped shot pattern from a short barrel, unchoked, shot off the hip @10yards.
We're not talking bird hunting. We're talking lethal shot grouping capable of stopping an enemy.
Then we'll compare it to my SigSauer P220-45 and L1a1 (with it's 16.25" Congo front end).
We'll set up multiple targets/distances.
Show me how a bouble barreled sawed off is better.
So Sub, when we going shooting! I wana shoot an L1A1!
=D
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
How'd it go with the double barrel sawed off?
Was it as accurate?
Aimed fire?
Now because you've fired some shotguns, doesn't make you an expert if you've not fired a sawed off double barrel.
And yes, you'd be coming out of left field if you haven't.
And if you live in the SF bay area, let me know the next time you're going shooting. I'd like to see nicely grouped shot pattern from a short barrel, unchoked, shot off the hip @10yards.
We're not talking bird hunting. We're talking lethal shot grouping capable of stopping an enemy.
Then we'll compare it to my SigSauer P220-45 and L1a1 (with it's 16.25" Congo front end).
We'll set up multiple targets/distances.
Show me how a bouble barreled sawed off is better.
Saburo, I would GLADLY put my 18" double barreled "sawed off"(crescent arms 1910, btw) 12 guage up against your L1A1 at 10 yards, and I would not feel under-armed in any way. Get yourself one of those russian-made coach guns, pull the bead off the front of the rib, and learn to point shoot.
At 50 yards, you'd win, probably. At 25, who knows? A shotgun is an ideal CLOSE IN weapon.
-
Originally posted by rshubert
Saburo, I would GLADLY put my 18" double barreled "sawed off"(crescent arms 1910, btw) 12 guage up against your L1A1 at 10 yards, and I would not feel under-armed in any way. Get yourself one of those russian-made coach guns, pull the bead off the front of the rib, and learn to point shoot.
At 50 yards, you'd win, probably. At 25, who knows? A shotgun is an ideal CLOSE IN weapon.
I would not feel a disadvantage from point-blank to 500-700 meters with my L1a1.
16.25" barrel Congo front end. 20-round magazines. .308 win (7.62 x 51 mm NATO) round.
You'd lose. (check out ballistics)
Now if we were going bird hunting hell, I'd like practically ANY shotgun over mine.
There's a reason that no military in the world has the shotgun (of anykind) as their main weapon.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
So Sub, when we going shooting! I wana shoot an L1A1!
=D
Well I've got an important wedding I've got to "shoot"
Want to go in about a month or two?
You're going to really like the Rem 700 PSS also.
-
The don't have 9mm pistols, M249 Saws or M24 sniper rifle as a "main weapon" either. But all of them have their place in the military and are in "common use".
Just like military shotguns and soon :) the LSS shotgun pistol.
I have got to get me one o' them things!
-
mt... I believe that what charon is saying is that there is ample evidense to prove that the miller decission admitted that the second was an individual right.... miller was an individual and if he were being tried as a part of the militia...then it is a personal right... so long as you fit the 16 years old and able bodied description of militia... You are looking at the "collective" in a very broad sense.... that of the "militia" being the collective... that is like saying "males" is collective rather than individual... the qualifications for militia or male or... to be part of the collective... are allmost nonexistent...
But... I would be glad to agree that it is a collective right to the extent that it covers all able bodied men over the age of 16.... wouldn't hurt to lower that age at some time tho..
And.... for all who think that maybe the 9th circuit court is on to something.... The 9th is the most overturned court in the history of the United States.... it is a sick joke... it is overturned 76% of the time (compared to average circuits of about 24%) in one year it had 27 of 28 decisions overturned... It is a liberal court out of control because of two judges appointed by Klinton and one by Karter. I believe that is why MTs wife makes him listen to them so much....
they overturned the vote of the citizens of Arizona who voted unanimously to make english the official language of the state.
the voted to stop the recall election of the gray one (gray davis) in Kalifornia but were..... overturned.
lazs
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
Well I've got an important wedding I've got to "shoot"
Want to go in about a month or two?
You're going to really like the Rem 700 PSS also.
Month or two would be great. I am a bit light on guns right now since most are in WA, only two I have here are an old 1911 and my Sig 220.
Ill spring for ammo though!
-
One more I guess, since things are stalled at work for now. Here's the other side of the 9th court ruling.
Entire 9th Circuit Ducks Judge Reinhardt's Ricochet,
Could Hit the Supreme Court Docket
A deeply divided U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last week refused to review a controversial ruling from a three-judge panel led by Judge Stephen Reinhardt that held the Second Amendment protects only a collective -- rather than an individual -- right to keep and bear arms. Consequently, unless the Supreme Court takes up the case, not only will the result leave standing a California ban on semiautomatic weapons, but it will also leave intact the panel's historical contortions concluding that the Second Amendment "was not adopted in order to afford rights to individuals with respect to private gun ownership or possession."
The 9th Circuit's decision not to hear the case en banc (as a whole) came over the dissent of six judges, several of whom vigorously noted the explicit conflict between the panel's collective rights view and the individual rights approach taken by the 5th Circuit in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 901 (2002), and supported by the current administration. Four of the dissenters, led by Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, argued that the case should be reheard in order to rectify the conflict. "Where the Constitution establishes a right of the people, no organ of the government, including the courts, can legitimately take that right away from the people," Judge Kleinfeld wrote.
These dissenters also noted that Judge Reinhardt and the other judges on his panel -- who routinely take generous approaches to other parts of the Constitution -- read the Second Amendment with absurd restrictiveness. "If we used the panel's methodology, taking each word according a right in the Bill of Rights in the narrowest possible sense, then we would limit the freedom of 'speech' protected by the First Amendment to oral declamations," Judge Kleinfeld wrote.
Even noted liberal Judge Harry Pregerson disagreed with the Reinhardt panel's insistence that the Second Amendment was designed only to protect state-regulated militias. "The panel misses the mark by interpreting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms as a collective right, rather than as an individual right," he wrote. "Because the panel's decision abrogates a constitutional right, this case should have been reheard en banc."
But the strongest words of reprimand came from Judge Alex Kozinski, who fled Romania under the dictatorship of Nicolae Ceausescu. Writing from his own experience, Judge Kozinski explained that history could have been vastly different had American slaves or European Jews been able to arm themselves and fight back against the governments that oppressed them.
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for re-election and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees," he wrote in dissent. "However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
Judge Kozinski also made special note of the interpretive inconsistency of the judges on the Reinhardt panel given their usual proclivity to find individual rights when the Constitution uses the words "people" or "person." "Had they brought the same generous approach to the Second Amendment that they routinely bring to the First, Fourth and selected portions of the Fifth, they would have had no trouble finding an individual right to bear arms," he wrote.
The refusal of the 9th Circuit to rehear the case, Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), clears the way for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not confronted the protections of Second Amendment for more than 60 years.
BTW, Finegold stated a personal opinion on Miller. [edit: he is actually fairly moderate on guns, though there are some notable exceptions in his history]. If you read the actual testimony, Robert’s disagrees that Miller clearly states it to be a collective right (but in a nice way).
Charon
-
Just wait, with Roberts sworn in as CJ-SCOTUS dubya will get one more consitutionalist on the court and we might get a ruling for once
-
yep... it's time to quit screwing around... let's get this all out in the open.. let's have some SC ruling (after dubya pumps up the court with honest men).
So MT.... if the SC heard the case for the second.... How would you want the ruling to go?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yep... it's time to quit screwing around... let's get this all out in the open.. let's have some SC ruling (after dubya pumps up the court with honest men).
So MT.... if the SC heard the case for the second.... How would you want the ruling to go?
lazs
Based on what I've read in this thread, and on the great internet.... It doesn't matter one iota.
Let me explain.
If the SC says it is an individual right, not a whole lot changes.
If the SC says it is a collective right, not a whole lot changes due to the definition of a militia. So tell me. Why should I care?
-
Hardly.... if the SC admits that it is an individual right that can't be infringed upon then all that is left is to determine what are arms and what arms could be useful to a militia...
The first thing that would happen is that more states would be forced to adopt gun laws much like Vermont or face a rash of court cases that would drown em... At the same time the gun control acts of 1934 and 1968 would become moot and be recinded.
The BATF would have to close it's doors for lack of anything to do and billions of dollars a year that is being spent on gun control would no longer have any government agencies to go to.
No taxes or fees would be allowed since these would be infringments. It says "shall not be infringed" not "you can have guns if you can afford the fees"
you could still have any gun control laws you wanted on private property.
lazs
-
I can see them restricting ownership to felons and parolees.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
No taxes or fees would be allowed since these would be infringments. It says "shall not be infringed" not "you can have guns if you can afford the fees"
lazs
Well hell, let's take this one step further....
I want my gun for free then. I mean, those high prices are infringing my buying that Barret Light 50. ;)
-
You are not buying the gun from the Government.
-
I can see getting rid of the whole parole thing.
To me... once a criminal is released from prison he should have all his rights restored.... if you don't think him capable of restored rights.... of walking amoung us.... why did you let him out in the first place?
And... if he wants to use a gun then he will. No law will change that.
lazs