National FRT trigger legality

[CamoDeafie]

The ""common use"" test in Heller and then reiterated in Bruen; neither of them seem to differentiate between the arms used by the citizens/civilians and the arms used by the military and law enforcement. That right there point to a very interesting set of questions that should simplify things.

Is making war a lawful purpose?

Is defense of the self, the public, State, and national interest, a lawful purpose?

This absolutely ties in with both the militia component of the 2A, as well as the People component.

Edit. Target shooting is lawful. Hunting is generally lawful with the licensing and season restrictions. Competition shooting is also lawful. Heller does not limit 2A to exclusively " individual self defense"

 

[CamoDeafie]

I do think the 2008 SCOTUS made a huge misstep when they wrote "arms in common use at the time, and commonly possessed for lawful purposes such as self defense are protected", when they should have used "arms possessed for all lawful purposes including but not limited to self defense, are protected by 2A, irrespective of how rare they are, how advanced or lethal they are or are not".

 

[wired]

I do think the 2008 SCOTUS made a huge misstep when they wrote "arms in common use at the time, and commonly possessed for lawful purposes such as self defense are protected", when they should have used "arms possessed for all lawful purposes including but not limited to self defense, are protected by 2A, irrespective of how rare they are, how advanced or lethal they are or are not".

I think they wrote exactly what they meant to write. Scalia wasn't a 2nd amendment absolutist and he was the closest you had on that court.

 

[CamoDeafie]

I think they wrote exactly what they meant to write.

So they wrote it so that inferior courts could say "look, they didn't say all lawful purposes, they said self defense, therefore that's the only lawful purpose the 2A covers" ? yeah, no.

 

[wired]

So they wrote it so that inferior courts could say "look, they didn't say all lawful purposes, they said self defense, therefore that's the only lawful purpose the 2A covers" ? yeah, no.

They did what they did for a reason.

 

[CamoDeafie]

They did what they did for a reason.

So that they could get a majority is the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[wired]

So that they could get a majority is the only thing that makes sense to me.

More so they could wipe the 2nd of the militia/military aspect and rewrite it as a self defense allowance.

 

[CamoDeafie]

More so they could wipe the 2nd of the militia/military aspect and rewrite it as a self defense allowance.

Heller was a 5-4 decision. It wasn't unanimous

 

[wired]

Heller was a 5-4 decision. It wasn't unanimous

Rulings seldom are

 

[CamoDeafie]

Rulings seldom are

Goes back to what I said; it was written to get a majority opinion at a time when gun control was being proposed

 

[wired]

Goes back to what I said; it was written to get a majority opinion at a time when gun control was being proposed

Yes and in doing so they managed to whitewash the origin of the 2nd amendment which was to give the people the right to raise and maintain militias using the arms necessary to maintain and raise a militia, you know, "being necessary to the security of a free state". Heller wasn't a big win. It watered the 2nd amendment down to a right to defend oneself with certain personal arms.

 

[CamoDeafie]

The term "such as", as used in the Heller decision; "lawful purposes such as self defense"... That term does not make it exclusive. It is inclusive. Because of the background of the case (DC ban on handguns at home, and ban on any other loaded weapons anywhere); of course it would be that the case is about possessing guns for self defense. However, had they written " for all lawful purposes including self defense" (basically the same meaning but more precise), other courts would not have been able to twist the Heller terms to be "exclusively used in self defense".


McDonald V Chicago affirmed that it is an individual right and that the 14th Amendment makes it applicable to States (incorporated).


Honestly, if they stuck with "arms suitable for militia (read, military) use are protected by 2A" as interpreted in Miller; then the NFA would have had been struck down based on the fact that the military and the National Guard commonly use
short barreled firearms, automatic weapons, and destructive devices; in addition to handguns

 

[wired]

The term "such as", as used in the Heller decision; "lawful purposes such as self defense"... That term does not make it exclusive. It is inclusive. Because of the background of the case (DC ban on handguns at home, and ban on any other loaded weapons anywhere); of course it would be that the case is about possessing guns for self defense. However, had they written " for all lawful purposes including self defense" (basically the same meaning but more precise), other courts would not have been able to twist the Heller terms to be "exclusively used in self defense".


McDonald V Chicago affirmed that it is an individual right and that the 14th Amendment makes it applicable to States (incorporated).


Honestly, if they stuck with "arms suitable for militia (read, military) use are protected by 2A" as interpreted in Miller; then the NFA would have had been struck down based on the fact that the military and the National Guard commonly use
short barreled firearms, automatic weapons, and destructive devices; in addition to handguns

Had FDR not been Americas dictator that is exactly what they would/should have done

 

[Nibbs]

These could be used to overturn the NFA, but the Second Amendment at a minimum gives The People the right to whatever an infantry squad can have, and given the attitude at the founding we should be able to have a fully loaded aircraft carrier because the US Navy was made up of privately owned ships.

Correct So long as you can afford one.
PARITY ARMAMENT IS A Constitutionally Secured Right!
Not too sure abt Nukes.. Don't know that The Boys discussed that over their Pints of Real Ale!!

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Does anyone know if an frt or super safety is available for a Mac-10 clone? I saw new Mac-10 clone 9mm for $369 last week.

 

[OverCookedRock]

I think these are the clear choices I'd go with.

View attachment 2038563 View attachment 2038564

Low key the pineapple one goes kinda hard

 

[wingman33]

Low key the pineapple one goes kinda hard

Indeed.

 

[Jcon268]

I would love to stick one of those super safeties in my 9 mm AR PCC, but is my right to bear arms infringed by not being able to add the upgrade? Probably not. Every right that's guaranteed in the Bill of Rights has limits and exceptions where government can regulate. if the NFA itself gets overturned, then I think the entire landscape changes, but my guess is this particular Oregon law is gonna be here forever

I think more importantly there's been a demonstration of prejudice against gun owners in the State legislature and in Congress by the sheer number of gun bills introduced and the number of times they have gutted and stuffed them with anti-2A language after passing them. And, personally, I don't see how well these "devices" were defined when a light trigger pull (< 3.5lb) coupled with a moderately skilled shooter can produce a rapidly firing weapon. They fact that they don't delineate makes me think this was just the first step in eventually knocking down a whole lot more in the semi-automatic categories. They went for the low hanging fruit first but they will come for the whole tree.

 

[CountryGent]

Parenthetical question; any reason why FRTs aren't good to go in the great state of Arizona? It appears they are just fine, but figured I'd toss it out there.

 

[jabayevx]

Atrius promises a lot and hasn't delivered yet. No ambi. No Geissele compatibility. As far as FRT being a range toy: lol yeah OK.