National Defining Common use in the courts.

[bbbass]

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

Is a nuke a "crew served" weapon??

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Is a nuke a "crew served" weapon??

It's an abomination that shouldn't exist in the world. It does take a collective to build, operate, and maintain it though...

I've never met a government that felt a need to restrict itself from owning its own arms.(collective use). The second amendment was a restriction on the government from infringements on individual rights not collective powers or legislative powers.

So when framing what an individual armament is taking an item that requires a large collective to assemble own and operate I think falls more into the collective powers category then It does the right of an individual to self defense.

Would an individual find a tank something they would find useful for self defense I would say yes, in defense from a tyrannical collective or government abuse. It would also take a crew to operate it and therefore wouldn't be an individual but a crew armament and should probably be owned by that "crew". This would protect 1 madman from driving a tank through a city causing havoc and if the "crew" did not know each other and it required all of them to operate it the likelihood of a mishap would be diminished. (But not impossible).

There are some that would argue a crazy crew could take it over and cause havoc but, the same could happen in our current military.

With great power comes a level of expected great responsibility on the part of the owners.

As well as having them be educated enough to keep it in working order the way it was intended.

 

[Diamondback]

Problem with nukes is, if we give 'em up we're at the mercy of the rest of the world who won't, and there's no way to put the genie back in the bottle. Same with gas and germs.

 

[bbbass]

We haven't had a world war since we dropped two nukes on Imperial Japan, thereby saving hundreds of thousands of Allied soldiers lives. It is and has been a sword above the head of thuggish countries and the ultimate response to imperiallistic/fascist/commie bullies. So that's what owning an "abomination" can do for you. MAD worked and still does.

Privately owned arms work the same way. The govt that fears it's citizens tends not to kill them so much. Criminals go elsewhere when they think they could be shot to pieces by CCW holders. Car jacking in (Alamaba?) came to a halt when the state made it legal to shoot carjackers after some violent jackings.

 

[powersbj]

The point is to create a rally point not to argue history. To put it simply we are losing the culture war. People need something simple to rally around and bring in the uninvolved gun owners. Something like.... you should be able to own anything the police have. The reality we have to accept is we are now a minority voting block and we have to adapt and get some solid legal rulings to stop initiative based attrition.

 

[Member 5605]

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.

A little more recent. The uptick is a good one.

More at the ATF:

Data & Statistics | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

Available from no other source, this comprehensive collection of ATF-related data from national surveys, state-based surveys, other collected license statistics, and other data sources documents trends in firearms, commerce and use of federal services in the United States. United States Bomb...

www.atf.gov

Really could show 'common use'

 

[Member 24180]

I see some comments here that discuss "arms" outside of the context of firearms.

The right guaranteed is to keep and bear arms (emphasis on bear). Arms that you can bear are those you can hold.

So the right guarantees arms you can hold that are in common use and are not dangerous or unusual.

 

[cigars]

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

Leave my laser printer out of this!

 

[bbbass]

I see some comments here that discuss "arms" outside of the context of firearms.

The right guaranteed is to keep and bear arms (emphasis on bear). Arms that you can bear are those you can hold.

So the right guarantees arms you can hold that are in common use and are not dangerous or unusual.

So said some university prof, lawyer, and the Supreme Court.... "interpreting" the text of the 2nd Amendment. However, we know that the SC often makes mistakes, and often rules arbitrarily and for political purpose/agenda.

The U.S. Supreme Court has twice ruled in the past 11 years that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual pre-political liberty. That is the highest category of liberty recognized in the law. It is akin to the freedoms of thought, speech and personality. That means that the court has recognized that the framers did not bestow this right upon us. Rather, they recognized its pre-existence as an extension of our natural human right

IMO, if the BOR is affirming pre-existing rights, human rights, or God-given rights, how does one say that those rights are limited to what one can carry? Where in the forefathers writings does it say that an individual citizen cannot have a cannon? Well, because some old lawyers in black said so, many years later. I have to live with it, but it doesn't make it right! I have to live with Roe v Wade also.

If we are interpreting the meaning of "bear" I could easily make the argument that it means "bring to bear" vs "carry". (Edit: or that carry can mean to transport, such as cannon, boxes of powder, grenades, rockets, exploding shells, etc.. )

 

[Member 5605]

So the right guarantees arms you can hold that are in common use and are not dangerous or unusual.

Arms of 1791 were to include cannons... this invalidates your above statement right?

 

[Slobray]

Arms of 1791 were to include cannons... this invalidates your above statement right?

As well as private warships......................



Ray

 

[Member 24180]

Dyjital - "Arms of 1791 were to include cannons... this invalidates your above statement right?"

Note all the parts of what I said.

"So the right guarantees arms you can hold that are in common use and are not dangerous or unusual."

1. arms you can hold

2. in common use

3. not dangerous

4. not unusual.

Do cannons qualify?

 

[E4mafia]

I think this solves the OP's thread.

Also to the people fighting over other than conventional typical use rifles etc.

Would you really want someone ND'ing an AT4 into your house because they don't know what they are doing or the idiots get drunk and want to put on a funny show. Or someone driving a tank thru traffic with road rage running over the diesel stacks on stacks rolling coal for sport?

 

[titsonritz]

Owning a full-on tank would be AWESOME!!

I'd be connect with a WWII vintage.

 

[Caveman Jim]

The point is to create a rally point not to argue history. To put it simply we are losing the culture war. People need something simple to rally around and bring in the uninvolved gun owners. Something like.... you should be able to own anything the police have. The reality we have to accept is we are now a minority voting block and we have to adapt and get some solid legal rulings to stop initiative based attrition.

We need to pass a Washington initiative that prohibits the impairment of rights held in the state constitution by the initiative process.

 

[Diamondback]

We need to pass a Washington initiative that prohibits the impairment of rights held in the state constitution by the initiative process.

Good luck getting THAT past Turd Ferguson's kiddie-diddling buddies in black robes...

 

[Caveman Jim]

Good luck getting THAT past Turd Ferguson's kiddie-diddling buddies in black robes...

I know but that's what has to happen, they have got to be put in their place!!!!

 

[bbbass]

Also to the people fighting over other than conventional typical use rifles etc.

Would you really want someone ND'ing an AT4 into your house because they don't know what they are doing or the idiots get drunk and want to put on a funny show. Or someone driving a tank thru traffic with road rage running over the diesel stacks on stacks rolling coal for sport?

"Shall not be infringed", unless someone could get hurt by somebody else doing something malicious or dumb... We have laws about those kinds of acts, we don't need to ban the things, when the acts are banned/illegal!

Slobray is correct.... all manner of arms used to be in private hands, and were brought to bear, along with militias and armies, when needed.

 

[CamoDeafie]

M4s and M16s along with certain other types (such as SBRs, SBS, AOWs, and suppressors) should absolutely be allowed to be owned by civilians per one of the older SCOTUS cases in which it was argued that

arms suitable for militia use and in "common use" with the military are to be protected by the 2A

If they wish to define the 2A as pertaining to militias and military, then they should define "in common use" as "general issue to standard troops", and thus, maybe invalidate NFA1934 and the Hughes Amendment

 

[CamoDeafie]

Dyjital - "Arms of 1791 were to include cannons... this invalidates your above statement right?"

Note all the parts of what I said.

"So the right guarantees arms you can hold that are in common use and are not dangerous or unusual."

lets go down the rabbit hole shall we?

1. arms you can hold

There's such a thing as having holdings of property (land and such).. means arms corporations legally have 2A protection as well, so they can develop advanced weaponry...

2. in common use

One of the SCOTUS cases argued common use as being military issued. Now, we have M4s with 14.5" barrels issued on a general basis, means SBRS and Machine guns due to the M4's 3rd burst should be available to civilian ownership? Invalidates NFA 1934 and Hughes amendment?

3. not dangerous

Now here... this is taken to mean the arms won't hurt, kill, explode the bearer/owner without the owner say so

4. not unusual.

Now heres a hilarious thing. Whats "unusual"? Right now its unusual to see black powder and lever action arms in military use, going from "common use"

Do cannons qualify?

in so far as one can own holdings of property, its in common use with military (105mm Light Howitzer for example); is not dangerous (extensively tested and proven); and not unusual ; yeah, almost every standing army in the world has a bunch of 105mm caliber cannons/howitzers, yes absolutely a 105mm cannon qualify, and indeed, there are a number of them in private hands, mostly deactivated/demilled but very few fully functional and registered as NFA items (Destructive Devices).