search
top

Attention Paranoid Nutcases

When will you dumb flyover rubes get that there’s no one out there who wants to take your guns.

WHEREAS, under this “individual right theory”, the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Second Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional; and

Don’t you get it? You’re all paranoid and delusional. Just crazy. Sure, there are a few nuts who want to ban guns. But it’s not a mainstream viewpoint. Certainly no legislature of any US state would ever endorse such an idea. Get with reality. We just want a few common sense gun laws.

33 Responses to “Attention Paranoid Nutcases”

  1. John says:

    There are no “common sense” gun laws. There are already hundreds of laws on the books in relation to criminal acts and firearms. Any more go beyond “common sense” and merely restrict law abiding citizens. Just the mere fact that you insist there be even more laws suggests that gun control does not work. Take “gun free zones” for example. Since Biden proposed these in the 90’s, where has nearly every single mass shooting taken place? Yep, a gun free zone. How is that law working for you? We cannot legislate away evil.

  2. Ian Argent says:

    At least they want an amendment.

    There’s enough ConCarry states now that even without VT, any such amendment can be defeated *just by the ConCarry states. Much less the shall issue ones.

  3. Joe says:

    Exactly. Us gun-grabbers just wanna take away your privacy, due-process, and trial-by-jury rights first…….Then we’ll kick your doors down, seize your guns, and either imprison or just outright kill a few million of you in the process …..all for your safety too.

  4. mike w. says:

    But, but, just because they pass a resolution to remove the 2nd Amendment doesn’t mean they’ll actually come for your guns after they’ve removed that legal barrier……

    In jest, but you know people will argue that.

    • BC says:

      I was just about to say. “Just because we’re interested in repealing the Second Amendment doesn’t mean we’re going to take away your guns, you paranoid gun-nut!”

      These jagoffs are nothing if not drearily predictable.

      • blackpilled says:

        “We didn’t take away your guns! You can still own a gun, as long as it’s locked up at the range, you pay a licensing fee every year, submit to a psychiatric examination, agree that you can only shoot on alternate Tuesdays when it’s a full moon, and promise never to have more than 10 rounds on hand at any one time.”

  5. Storm says:

    You forgot to include the important part. Hawaiian douchebags!

    BE IT RESOLVED by the House of Representatives of the Twenty-ninth Legislature of the State of Hawaii, Regular Session of 2018, that the United States Congress is urged to propose and pass a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution pursuant to article V of the United States Constitution to clarify the constitutional right to bear arms; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States Congress is requested to consider and discuss whether the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution should be repealed or amended to clarify that the right to bear arms is a collective, rather than individual, constitutional right; and

    BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that certified copies of this Resolution be transmitted to the President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Members of the Hawaii’s congressional delegation, and the Governor.

  6. 24 says:

    Did this pass?

  7. Matt says:

    I have seen Miller mentioned a couple of times. I read the opinion and it was fairly narrowly worded visa vi sawed off shotguns and martial use. I think the martial/military/militia line is interesting.

    A few points I have thought about and would like to know if my thought process is off base:

    1) The Militia Act of 1792, while amended to include freed slaves after the civil war and to allow the creation of the National Guard, is still the law of the land. This is one of the first laws under the constitution and it defines exactly what the founders and their contemporaries expected of the militia. It is the specific codification of the militia clause defining who it applies to and what is expected of them.

    2) This act and its subsequent amending acts broadly define who is in the militia and what equipment those in the militia. This list of equipment can be described as a combat load-out. This equipment, including arms, is contemporaneous to the time of the act. The Miller decision extended the definition of arms to be (IIRC) “militarily useful” at that time. The Miller decision has fairly narrow wording.

    3) In modern terms, and broadly speaking, this can be extended to include all semi-automatic (possibly even automatic) rifles in NATO standard calibers, using standard magazines (AR/STANAG, SR25, etc), standard (20 or 30rd) magazines, bayonets (and by extension bayonet lugs), etc. or other militarily useful rifles (AK pattern, etc) of a good quality. Specifically, and at a minimum, issue pattern rifles (eg: Colt 6921 14.5″ carbine) should be explicitly exempt from the NFA as being the most appropriate rifle for militia use.

    With the above in consideration gun laws that restrict or ban militarily useful arms (ARs) or allow them, but in a configuration that would be unacceptable for martial use (looking at you Cali.) are unconstitutional no matter how you look at it. Further more, and I might be wrong, an expected combat load for an M4 would be 8×30 round magazines or 240 rounds in GI Al mags or Pmags.

    Can the Miller decision be used to force states such as CA, NJ, NY, etc to allow ARs, with threaded barrels, with flash-hiders, pistol grips, standard capacity magazines, etc. as they are the most militarily useful arms available to the general public and are what an individual is required to proved for the collective defense?

    • wolfwalker says:

      No lawyer I, but I think your analysis is essentially correct, so long as you also mention that it was well-established law in 1792 that members of the citizen militia were supposed to arm themselves out of their own resources, so that when/if they were called up for duty they would already have weapons that they could use in combat. They were also expected to be competent in using those weapons.

      Given that additional fact, it can be easily argued that the Second Amendment requires all militia members to own military-grade firearms, even fully automatic ones.

    • Richard says:

      Very interesting analysis. I would think in today’s world the Militia Act would have to be amended to include women, if that has not already been done. Also, I have concerns about making arms bearing solely a function of militia service. This moves toward the collective rights theory which could and has been abused to restrict rights. So it must be coupled with an explicit and robust individual rights statements.

    • Sebastian says:

      1. The Militia Act of 1792 is not the law of the land any longer. The current Militia Act is that of 1903, colloquially known as the Dick Act. That’s been amended several times since by the Militia Act of 1908 and various National Defense Acts. Under these acts an unorganized militia still technically exists.

      2. The Miller decision is probably not operative precedence. The Supreme Court expressed some degree of skepticism for it. Heller explicitly rejected the militia right that was poorly described in Miller. The Heller conception of the 2nd Amendment centers around self-defense.

      3. I believe machine guns should be protected by the Second Amendment, but because they are useful for self-defense against despots. Heller doesn’t preclude a self-defense right against your own government, or against a group claiming to be government.

      Don’t put too much stock in the Miller decision, because the Supreme Court seems to be going in a different direction.

      • Matt says:

        It would be an interesting vector to attack from.

        I agree, it does give some credence to the collective rights socialist nonsense. It also ties it to the individual right and an individual duty. I haven’t seen this explored and I’d love to see a discussion about it in the community.

        I have used this line of reasoning with people who argue the collective rights BS to justify GC laws and it has given them pause. It has a logic to it and it is a line of attack they haven’t heard before and therefore don’t have a canned response to regurgitate back. It also acknowledges what they believe and takes it to a logical conclusion that they hadent thought of/been told to think of.

      • Scott in Phx says:

        The question is “what is an arm”?

        The M16 is identical to the AR15 except for full-auto capability. The AR15 is absolutely an “arm”, why not the M16 (or Tommy gun, also clearly a “fire”arm).

        Per Heller “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

        “Bearable” and “arms”. What does that mean?

        I can bear a Stinger Missile. Is that an “arm”?

        Heller says no, because one wouldn’t carry that for self-defense.

        Despite the criticism of Heller for its self-defense centric description of the 2A at the expense of the “guarantee the existence of the militia” view in Miller, at its core Heller is correct.

        Arms at the time of the founding referred to weapons that one would carry for self-defense (there is no right to “offence”) and/or for militia duty. The “arm” has to be useful for self-defense.

        A stinger missile, tank, cannon, warship, etc etc are not (and of course you can’t “bear” some of those).

        So they are not arms.

        Unfortunately that probably leaves out tripod mounted machine guns because one wouldn’t carry them for self-defense despite their being useful in a militia situation.

        Is there a rational for finding that a full-auto version of a semi-auto rifle is not an “arm” under the 2A?

        I don’t think any court has ever addressed that.

        • Chris says:

          Members of the community were expected to form militia companies under local leadership, so I would include anything on a typical national guard light infantry TO&E as protected, or anything on a state police (or other LE) issue list.

          I could be persuaded to go up to the regimental or battalion level though.

          So crew served weapons like M2s, mortars, etc? Fine. Nukes? Nope.

          The state police part adds a “good for the gander” element that I find poetic. Dont like weapons of war in your state? Fine, disarm your state police to 38s and double barrel shotguns, convert your national guard units to medical detachments and we will talk.

          • Scott in Phx says:

            Why is a mortar ok? You can “bear” it, sure.

            But does that fit with the Founders usage of the words “keep and bear arms”.

            If one accepts Heller’s definition of arms (wherein they quote the 1771 legal dictionary saying “arms” are weapons one carries for self-defense) then does a mortar fit that?

            If you want to expand “arms” to include mortars then you must expand the definition to include arms that certainly would not be typically carried for self-defense, like a mortar.

            So, at that point why stop at mortars? Bazooka’s? Stinger missiles?

            Where is the rational cutoff?

            Also, members of the community are not now EXPECTED to form militia units. The Congress has not so stipulated.

            The 2A speaks of the idea that “a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state” but that admonition is not a requirement stipulated by the 2A.

            The 2A left the Congress and the states with exactly the same powers over the militia that they have per the Constitution.

            The only operative part of the 2A is the second part. And it speaks to the right to “arms”.

            Why is a mortar an “arm”?

            Besides the fact that you want it to be?

            • Chris says:

              The question posed was “what was arms?” My answer is logically related directly to the founding purpose, which is to facilitate organizing, training and equipping a militia unit at the company echelon.

              You do know that the militia units under the Anglo-colonial system routinely had crew served weapons like cannon? Private citizens owned armed warships. Clearly crew served weapons that required horses to transport were within the founder’s schema for privately owned weapons.

              So, how exactly do you think a LIGHT (i.e. foot-mobile) infantry unit transports the 60mm mortars? A burly dude lugs the tube and another burly dude lugs the baseplate. They don’t even have horses and trunnions like ol’ Alexander Hamilton or the Concord, MA militia companies possessed!

              If looking at a national guard TO&E makes you feel funny, then look at civilian state police capabilities that would be found at this echelon. In PA, this would be state-level capabilities found in Special Emergency Response Teams. So… light mechanized vehicles, crew served weapons, a wide array of non-lethals (to include some of the larger capacity gas dispensers and indirect fire weapons), etc.

              Such a definition that links protected arms to arms in common usage by a police or military echelon also neatly keeps up with technology, as whatever is in current usage by contemporary government units is de-facto protected. Our host here has called that the “good for the goose, good for the gander” rule.

              Even if you disagree with the echelon (company level), then you could make an identical line of argument justifying equipment at some lower level:

              – Platoon level, which is synonymous with a TROOP (as in the “Pennsylvania State Police Troops”). An infantry platoon has M240s available so those would definitely be protected. This would cover any equipment in a state police TROOP (flash bang grenades, non-lethals, grenade launchers, night vision, possibly up armored vehicles).
              – Squad level: 40mm grenade launchers, full-auto M16s, light belt-fed machine guns, and designated marksman rifles are all found here. This would cover any equipment in a state police PATROL car (these days, that means “assault or PATROL rifles” for sure as well as body armor, standard capacity magazines, and a bunch of other goodies).

              This approach seems internally logically consistent to me. If full auto M16s should be protected because they are common infantry (or police officer) equipment, then the same argument justifies grenades, breaching shotguns, grenade launchers (or “tear gas launchers” if you like), and a bunch of other stuff.

              It also rules out the argument of, “well, the 2A doesn’t protect WMDs!” I’d agree, the 2A isn’t intended to cover national level assets, specialized niche military capabilities found at higher echelons (siege artillery), or other such capabilities. It should cover common equipment that individuals would use in a standard light infantry or civil police unit for defense of self and community.

              • Scott in Phx says:

                I notice an amazing lack of reference to any Founding era documents or statements to support your position.

                And nowhere have you attempted to explain how the words “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” mean and/or what it actually did (or does).

                You are as bad as the anti’s, you simply make the 2A do what you want it to do. Almost worse actually, the anti-s rarely ignore the words despite that they twist them to their purpose.

    • BC says:

      To me, as an attorney (though not currently in practice), the most interesting feature of the Miller decision is how it was baldly mischaracterized for decades. Read any of the Second Amendment jurisprudence from the years between Miller and Heller, and you’ll find inferior federal courts are nearly unanimous that Miller endorsed the “collective rights” model of the Second Amendment.

      Except Miller didn’t do that. At all. In fact, the Miller Court tacitly rejected that model by declining to resolve the case on justiciability grounds and actually reaching the merits of the constitutional claim. This is obvious from even a cursory reading of the Miller decision, which isn’t very long. Conclusion? Inferior federal courts spent sixty years just making shit up in order to justify judges’ anti-gun policy preferences.

      That’s the level of mendacity and corruption that we’re up against.

      • Brad says:

        I’m no lawyer, but I’ve always thought exactly the same thing.

      • TS says:

        Exactly. No where in the miller case did they ask the question of whether or not Miller was active in a Militia. Yet somehow anti gun activist judges used that decision to claim a collective right.

      • Scott in Phx says:

        Even more telling of course is that the gov’t brief argued the “collective right” interpretation.

        The SC ignored that. It is too bad they didn’t explicitly address it and give the reason for rejecting it.

    • Scott in Phx says:

      “Can the Miller decision be used to force states such as CA, NJ, NY, etc to allow ARs”?

      The answer is from Rawles post Revolutionary War treatise on the US Constitution.

      Re the 2A –

      “The first [principle] is a declaration that a wellregulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. . . .
      “The corollary, from the first position is, that theright of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
      “The prohibition is general. No clause in the constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” Rawle 121–122.20

      Long before the modern day idea of applying the BofR to the states Rawle already had it.

      The 2A is (should be) a bar on the States restriction of arms.

      • Arnie says:

        Excellent research, Scott! Thank you! I also recall that Tench Coxe made a similar statement that was recorded in the NRA’s “Second Amendment Primer.” I am normally a consistent States’ Sovereignty advocate when it comes to the Bill of Rigjts, but even I have to admit the historical evidence indicates the original intent of the Founders was to make the right to bear military firearms immune against both State and federal authorities, Bellesiles’ claims to the contrary notwithstanding.
        – Arnie

    • Arnie says:

      Excellent exposition, Matt! I’ve been advocating similarly for years now. I love how you think, sir!
      Sincerely, Arnie

  8. Matt says:

    Found at Sayuncle:

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1263/text

    Also, could the original milita act be sited as a means if showing the founders’ original intent of the 2nd?

  9. Matt says:

    Thinking about it it could be said that the 1st Ammendment protects speech broadly and political speech specifically. Similarly, the 2nd protects private arms generally, and military arms specifically.

    As to the above regarding stingers and other, hyperbolic, what ifs….

    I was only thinking about normal individual small arms. Thinking about it; the M203 could be lumped in, but I was thinking more narrowly. The average person is not buying a $40,000 per unit manpad at Cabelas. That being said, we do have a tradition of wealthier citizens providing artillery and other more substantial military equipment. Their are also more then a few tanks and other armored vehicles with live guns in private hands in the US.

    A tanks main gun is registered as a destructive device in the NFA. I would expect it to remain as it is not something that everyone is expected to provide.

  10. Ray says:

    The reason the democrat/communist party is so hot for universal civilian disarmament is that they plan to EXTERMANATE the white American in death camps. People just won’t get on trains to be “relocated” if they have arms to resist. The old “hippies” are in there 70’s to 90’s and they know they are going to die soon. They see this as there last chance to emplace the “Great peoples cultural revolution” that they have dreamed of for fifty years. In order to get that “Great National Commune” at least 40 million white Christians who cannot be “reeducated” MUST DIE. My family are members of the communist party and I have listened to this since LBJ was in office.(I voted Trump)As far as they are concerned this only ends when all of us die-or all of them. They don’t want peace. They want the bloodiest civil war you can invision, and they will not stop.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » Nobody wants to take your guns - […] Or your rights. Hawaii is looking to amend the constitution to rid it of the second amendment. […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top