Maybe we can get the arquebus industry to throw money behind that one. After, um, we get an arquebus industry.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Arquebuses might have appeal to the AR-15 fans, since they have that y-shaped stick accessory.
3 Likes
i wish i was joking 
my family is… weird. but not good weird.
2 Likes
… if you incorporate as a church you could get out of paying taxes 
2 Likes
good idea, but let’s not encourage them. 
2 Likes
Whether the courts rule one way or another, they all seem to agree with the phrase’s meaning. Even the people bringing pro-gun control challenges before the courts or courts who have ruled in favor of gun control are not using that phrase to bolster their arguments or decisions.
In the case of USA vs Miller 1939, Miller challenged the NFA and claimed him not being able to transport an unregistered SBS (short barreled shotgun) across state lines violated the Constitution.
The Supreme Court disagreed with him, saying that access to an SBS is not something that contributes to a “well regulated militia”. They said there was no “reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia”, (Emphasis mine)
In another quote from the decision:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that
possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less
than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency
of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second
Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such
an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice
that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
equipment or that its use could contribute to the com-
mon defense.
In other words, an SBS wasn’t shown to be an effective weapon that a well regulated militia would use, nor part of ordinary military equipment that would contribute to the common defense. Thus its restrictions under the NFA are constitutional.
It was not rejected with the reasoning that the “well regulated” phrase allowed the NFA to restrict what it wanted.
In the current gun control court cases that CA is embroiled in, they are using historical laws that restricted weapon ownership as evidence of the state’s rights to regulate firearms, not the “well regulated” phrase giving them the power to do so.
Source, Page 1 and 3:
I think it does allow for keeping unstable people from having weapons. People can lose some of their rights and even their freedom due to their actions. In fact if you’re too dangerous to not be able to own a firearm, then you probably are too dangerous to be in society with out at least some supervision. When it comes to DV there is so little support for the victims and way too often the people committing it receive no real consequences.
Wow, that’s a horrible blanket statement unsupported by evidence.
Again, it appeared out of nowhere in the 70s and was for the first time taken that way officially in the 80s.
So one ruling semi-ambiguously interpreted it that way. Still not a lot to hold onto.
Note also the strong implication that personal firearm ownership outside of a militia is not covered by 2A.
Duh. That’s the (erroneous) framework the current SCOTUS has laid out. They have to work within it if they actually want their arguments to carry weight in the current environment.
That’s jumping to massively unsupported conclusions. The people who have shot random strangers and family members for doing mundane things would be pretty much harmless without the firearm that they abused, and which they should never have owned.
5 Likes
Oh, oh, let me guess the response to this one!
6 Likes
just wait till people learn what knitting needles can do. it’s going to be mass casualty events every yarn sale. guns won’t be the number one cause of death for american children much longer /s
it is true society isn’t mature enough for guns. we can see that proven out by the vocal minority dead set against any and every change.
7 Likes
I’m sorry, are we still talking about 'well regulated" or something else?
My point about the meaning didn’t start out of the 70s or 80s. I’ve supported it by evidence: dictionary examples from 1864, court case example from 1939, Jerwin even helped out with old uses of the phrase that use the same meaning. In short “well regulated” had a meaning and understanding that is different than just “regulated by laws”.
What hasn’t been supported is the layman understanding of the meaning that is often repeated online as meaning “regulated by laws”. It has NOT used as a legal defense in various challenges. If you can find an example where it is argued that the phrase “well regulated” is what gives the state the power pass a law, then I will stand corrected. If you can find an example where that was argued successfully in court, will concede the point entirely that there is an alternate understanding that has held up in court.
I am not going to argue collective vs individual rights, as that certainly is not an open/shut case as seen by the back and forth cases in the courts. (Though you are correct the 1939 decision was more of a collective right decision, while also agreeing with my point as to the meaning of the phrase.)
if someone has done something (or threatened to do something) bad enough to lose their gun rights, they should have served jail time or at the very least be under some sort of supervised probation.
I don’t think that only restricting their legal access to firearms is enough as 1) they can acquire a firearm through illegal means or 2) they can be a danger through other means.
Just like a restraining order may deter most people to stay away from someone, it doesn’t actually provide any real security. There needs to be follow up.
could also be a excessively literal translation of a french text rather than a reification of clockwork universe, but, hey. Note that governors keep the time for both militia and watches.
In the context of the 2A, yes. And it first shows up in litigation against firearm regulation in the 1980s as dreamt up by NRA lawyers after the sociopath takeover in the 1970s.
Except the obvious, that the word is used 11 other times that way in the very document we’re discussing.
My concern with that statement is twofold: first, the implication is that full due process must be completed for firearms to be removed from such a person, when that is entirely insufficient in an environment where such processes regularly take years and can be screwed up while dire risk is still present for the victims. Second is the implied converse, that only offenses that would justify jail time should trigger removal. That ignores people, as I cited above, who lack impulse control or the perspective to safely use firearms but are otherwise not a direct threat to themselves or others. That cranky racist asshole who lives on the corner? They are mostly harmless unless and until they shoot a delivery person through their front door because he’s Black.
3 Likes
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
