Author Topic: Pride of Ignorance on Firearms  (Read 3558 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

papaairbear

  • Guest
Re: Pride of Ignorance on Firearms
« Reply #15 on: September 01, 2013, 06:37:41 PM »
I agree.  I understood Cooke's point in the article to be that even though the "militia" has a right to keep and carry the same arms the police have, the classification of "allowable"  weapons has yet to be determined, and SCOTUS will determine that.  Shoulder fired rocket launchers are a point of dramatization I would hope.  Drive by with LAWs?  God forbid!  (They are a blast- pun intended -to shoot though.)

In the Heller case, SCOTUS did determine

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court?s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller?s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ?in common use at the time? finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54?56.

With Scalia, and Kennedy both in their late 70s, I think the next several years are going to be crucial in the protection of our right to own firearms (sans rocket launchers, and hand grenades, and claymores....).  Obama has added Sotomayer and Kagen so it would just take one more proponent of stricter control to swing the balance in this court.  And that was the purpose of my statement

Offline Skookum

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2548
  • Truth is the new hate speech.
Re: Pride of Ignorance on Firearms
« Reply #16 on: September 01, 2013, 08:57:59 PM »
It seems to me that SCOTUS has defined allowable arms:  those now in common use for lawful purposes.

My simple interpretation, which I'll admit is perhaps an extrapolation of the above, is if the police (i.e., commonly used by the domestic standing army) have it and it is "bearable," then citizens should be able to possess and carry it.

It is obvious to me that state bans on common "high capacity" magazines and popular "assault weapons" are unconstitutional excesses of power.  But then, unconstitutional excesses of power are the norm these days, and SCOTUS is unreliable as is.
Skookum
Browning Challenger III, .22 Long Rifle, Glossy Blue
CZ 83, 9 Browning Court, Satin Nickel
CZ 75 Compact, 9 Luger, Dual Tone — Satin Nickel/Matte Blue
CZ 82, 9 Makarov, Czechoslovak People's Army Black
CZ 83, 7.65 Browning, Glossy Blue
Beretta 3032 Tomcat, .32 Auto, Inox

Offline armoredman

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 19931
Re: Pride of Ignorance on Firearms
« Reply #17 on: September 02, 2013, 02:01:04 PM »
My position is somewhat more radical, I suppose, and I am somewhat surprised that my view seems to be reflected in SCOTUS.
I believe the 2A supports the right of the people to keep and bear arms that would be appropriate for a light infantry organization, which the militia is. A quick look at TO&E for Minutemen would support that, and during the Revolution cannon and other heavy weapons were owned by civilians, brought to the fight. What this means is I support the right to keep and bear all arms appropriate such an outfit today, which would include organic air and armor assets as well. Yes, I just suggested the 2A supports the right to own armored vehicles and armed aircraft. You might be surprised that there are several armored vehicles in private hands with fully function main armament...and not a single one has been used in a crime, the horrible movie "Tank" notwithstanding. Gah.
There are many armed aircraft in civilian hands as well, including 27 armed Cobra attack helicopters, (Readers Digest story, about 20 years ago), and I dis-remember any drivebys with one. Or would that be a "flyby"?
There are RPGs for sale in the United States, thought the cost is very high, and of course, rockets for the launchers are VERY scarce, AND each one is covered by NFA '34 and GCA '68. However, the truth is they are out there, and I cannot remember a single story of a bank being held up with an RPG. I could be wrong. :)
For those recoiling in horror over the very idea, check back to the time between 1946 and 1968, when captured German and Russian mortars used to be available by mail order, and people would have "mortar meets" to compete shooting these indirect fire weapons of mass destruction at targets. While I would think that might be a wee bit dangerous, my views are colored by being a child of the 1980s, where CCW wasn't even widely available yet, and gun owners, even in Arizona, were sometimes regarded as odd for wanting to actually carry a snub 38 spl revolver in public.
Now with Arizona Constitutional Carry, the state recognizes the pre-existing right of the law abiding citizen to carry weapons in public as long as these weapons are being carried for lawful purposes. I have, for experimental purposes only, carried my SA vz-58 in a UTG case meant for unobtrusive carry of a rifle in public. Not one person remarked upon the case, (looks similar to a large soft sided portfolio), and after I satisfied myself that it was easy enough to do, and legal, I parked the case for use when actually required. :) BTW, it is a pain to do.
So, back to the OP question, are RPGs and other shoulder launcher missile systems covered under the 2A? Yes, I believe they are. We will see what the Supreme Court has to say, being the final interpreter of the Constitution, but they have been overturned, too.