National Defining Common use in the courts.

[powersbj]

I was pondering how to legally hamstring the endless drip of increasing restrictions. It occured to me that if we could legally define common use firearms as anything used by law enforcement we could at least hold the line more or less where it stands now in WA and would reverse alot of things in more restrictive states. It seems there is a good argument that for the purpose of self defense you should have access to the same tools a police officer has. I.e. semi auto black rifles, pistols, shotguns, body armor and the magazine capacity that they use... It seems a good rally point in stead of arguing every endless detail. Seems the SCOUS is probably as sympathetic as it's going to get for while. It could also play well into the extream left's B.L.M. wing.

Read More

 

[powersbj]

Heck if someone made an initiative calling it sensible "gun control". Make it sound like its adding reasonable restrictions to limit military firearms, it would probably get a ton of support.

 

[ZA_Survivalist]

I guess the judges ruling "common use" have never been to a match before. I find it atrocious that they can rule or give an uninformed opinion (at their level) against something without even knowing about the subject. Same goes for that "no sporting purpose" which is an absolute farce.. again.. millions of people engage in modern sporting rifle shooting sports as well as hunting.

They dilute self defense down to just a person against a person with a handgun or a shotgun in the home.. but the constitution made it clear rifles being included in "firearms" were for the prevention of a tyrannical government. Not "street self defense"

These types of judges need to be informed or disbarred.

 

[OldTengu]

I think millions in circulation being used for everything from home defense to competition to hobby shooting to pest control and hunting should quantify "common use" just fine.

 

[KKG]

Don't forget we already have a VERY Anti-Gun Attorney General who is NOT paying attention to the RCWs that were already in place. In fact, I understand he's using his Staff to write several of the Anti-Gun Laws he wants to see past!

 

[The Heretic]

but the constitution made it clear rifles being included in "firearms" were for the prevention of a tyrannical government.

The Constitution says "arms" not firearms. The intention was that any "arm" that the gov has/uses should be available to civilians. That means cannon (including explosive shells), grenades, all firearms, etc. - all of which were in use during the revolutionary war - and before.

 

[Stomper]

The Constitution says "arms" not firearms. The intention was that any "arm" that the gov has/uses should be available to civilians. That means cannon (including explosive shells), grenades, all firearms, etc. - all of which were in use during the revolutionary war - and before.

But back then they didn't have typewriters, word processors, laser printers, email, radio, TV, the interwebs... so that's not protected, either... right?

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Trends change over time, how do we know modern machine guns wouldn't be in common use now if they weren't mostly illegal?

This is my flaw with common use. It's only uncommon if it's not popular and how can it become popular if it's banned?

Therefore outright bans are in opposition to the common use. Things not in common use should still be allowed in some fashion so that when the time comes they are common then they can become less restricted.

Like supressors, they seem to be becoming more common, so they should be less restricted.

 

[The Heretic]

Trends change over time, how do we know modern machine guns wouldn't be in common use now if they weren't mostly illegal?

This is my flaw with common use. It's only uncommon if it's not popular and how can it become popular if it's banned?

Therefore outright bans are in opposition to the common use. Things not in common use should still be allowed in some fashion so that when the time comes they are common then they can become less restricted.

Like supressors, they seem to be becoming more common, so they should be less restricted.

Map of Federally Regulated Weapons - Metrocosm

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn19sharesIn four states (New York, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona), it is illegal to carry nunchucks. Oddly, those same states have a total of 60,715 legally registered machine guns. Machine guns are one of six categories of “Title II” weapon, which are...

metrocosm.com

There are over 3.6 million NFA registered weapons in the USA.

 

[bbbass]

The Constitution says "arms" not firearms. The intention was that any "arm" that the gov has/uses should be available to civilians. That means cannon (including explosive shells), grenades, all firearms, etc. - all of which were in use during the revolutionary war - and before.

I want a damn tank, and a jet fighter plane, I just can't figure out how to afford them!!

 

[Stomper]

I want a damn tank, and a jet fighter plane, I just can't figure out how to afford them!!

Owning a full-on tank would be AWESOME!!

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Map of Federally Regulated Weapons - Metrocosm

Facebook Twitter Google+ LinkedIn19sharesIn four states (New York, California, Massachusetts, and Arizona), it is illegal to carry nunchucks. Oddly, those same states have a total of 60,715 legally registered machine guns. Machine guns are one of six categories of “Title II” weapon, which are...

metrocosm.com

There are over 3.6 million NFA registered weapons in the USA.

Notice I said "modern" machine guns and "mostly". The Hughes amendment closed the registry and made common ownership cost prohibitive and not likely.

This is what ended it ever becoming common use and is effectively a ban as over time parts will become scarce and those in the registry will break etc.

And modern machine guns never make it to the registry. Did you know museums are also bound by this stupidity? Thats right everything after the 80s will never make it to a museum even. It'll be lost to history unless you are in the very tiny category of dealer samples etc.

 

[The Heretic]

I want a damn tank, and a jet fighter plane, I just can't figure out how to afford them!!

I could probably own either one, but I would have to live/sleep in it.

 

[The Heretic]

Notice I said "modern" machine guns and "mostly".

My point was that NFA weapons are far from uncommon.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

My point was that NFA weapons are far from uncommon.

My bad, the question is are they common enough to warrant less restriction? What's the bar?

Owning a full-on tank would be AWESOME!!

This argument eventually degrades into why can't we own a nuke then.

*sigh*. I'm of the egalitarian belief that if an individual is too dangerous to own something then why should an agent of the government own it? If it's so scary that individuals shouldn't own it, nobody should.

Crew served weapons were certainly around in private ownership in the 1700s with private canons and warships.

So yeah tanks should be allowed, even if heavily regulated and tied to the "crew" it would take to operate them.

Also if it takes a collective to operate it, does it then fall into the category of a collective right instead of an individual right?

 

[Caveman Jim]

Owning a full-on tank would be AWESOME!!

I hear Paul Allen's estate had one for sale....

 

[The Heretic]

My bad, the question is are they common enough to warrant less restriction? What's the bar?




This argument eventually degrades into why can't we own a nuke then.

Literally. As it did recently on FB when I made that argument in several different posts.

*sigh*. I'm of the egalitarian belief that if an individual is too dangerous to own something then why should an agent of the government own it? If it's so scary that individuals shouldn't own it, nobody should.

Ditto. Which was my reply; that no entity should own NBC weapons. One reason, besides the fact that their use could (and often is) considered a war crime, and the fact that we try to prohibit other govs from owning them, is that when abandoned, NBC weapons can and often do, become dangerous after being abandoned; they leak and kill or injure, without being armed. A gun won't kill unless the trigger is pulled. A grenade won't kill unless armed, etc.

Crew served weapons were certainly around in private ownership in the 1700s with private canons and warships.

So yeah tanks should be allowed, even if heavily regulated and tied to the "crew" it would take to operate them.

Also if it takes a collective to operate it, does it then fall into the category of a collective right instead of an individual right?

I seem to recall some discussion by the Founding Fathers about 'private armies'.

 

[Geardo]

I could probably own either one, but I would have to live/sleep in it.

You can't blow crap up with a house, but you can sleep in a tank.

 

[The Heretic]

You can't blow crap up with a house, but you can sleep in a tank.

I will take your word for it, but I doubt that I personally could sleep in a tank; for one thing, I am 6'6" tall and I have back issues such that I have problems sleeping on a king sized bed.

 

[Geardo]

I will take your word for it, but I doubt that I personally could sleep in a tank; for one thing, I am 6'6" tall and I have back issues such that I have problems sleeping on a king sized bed.

I would hang a hammock from the turret.