Strive For Balance In Gun Control

The Daily Campus (University of Connecticut) ^ | 11/30/07 | Dan Cunningham

[Larry Lucido]

Strive For Balance In Gun Control

Balance is critical. I like a modified weaver stance, myself.

[kAcknor]

Seems that your domain has expired...

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks Knarf. I agree with you.

[archy]

Sorry, but semi-autos aren’t machine guns as any reasonable person understands the term.

We are not talking about *reasonable people.* We're discussing legislators, who have in fact defined as *machine guns* any weapon with more than a 14-shot magazine capacity, [Ohio] any with a front pistol grip, folding stock or bayonet lug [Illinois] any spring, pin or sling swivel or other part that might also be used on a machinegun [Washington State] or shoelace [USA, per BATFE letter.]

[Squantos]

Dan Cunningham is clearly one dim dem......

Gun control is a joke , just like any other paper law that criminals ignore.

Until Dan & his clan gets that message they remain ignorant of the solutions to crime.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your compromise comments.

As for original intent, it sure makes a lot more sense than ‘European Intent’. I’m sure you agree, that the drift of the court is very toubling.

[Atlas Sneezed]

You wrote: “FA are not illegal.”
And then gave a link to a site that does not sell legal FA.

I needed to clear up your error.

[MrB]

Imagine if the Repub Congresscritters started running on the promise that they would bring impeachment hearings against any federal judge that included anything other than the text of the Constitution/Amendments and any supporting documentation from the time of ratification.

No foreign law, no “social justice”, no “evolving standards” - just the text and the intended meaning.

[Joe Brower]

Nyuk. $:-)

[Trailerpark Badass]

Guns were easier to transport across state lines, making interstate violence easier to commit.

??? I guess they don't teach things like logic at UCONN.

[backtothestreets]

If the court comes down on the anti-second amendment side, it would not bode well for Democrats or Republicans. Seven of the justices are Republican, with at least five of those deemed conservative. In deciding the intent of the Second Amendment, the justices will be exhibiting what a Republican conservative is.

Unlike the Roe v Wade decision on abortion that was decided by a majority of Republican justices that were then dubbed liberals, the Republican Party would not enjoy that luxury if this court decides to restrict the right of people to keep and bear arms.

I’ve a quirky sense, actually an expectation, the court is prepared to issue a decision with extraordinary emphasis on the state rather than the individual. I hope my expectation is proved unfounded.

I have to admit my expectations are based on cynicism. I earnestly believe citizen militias offer the greatest deterrent to crime, and thus offer the greatest security to a free State, and it is imperative to this end that the right of People to keep and bear arms is unrestricted and paramount in this social equation.

I am also keenly aware both the Democrats and Republicans have expanded law enforcement agencies that place government, not citizens, in the position to control crime, or in my most cynical appraisal, ration crime, knowing that crime incites fear, and with fear comes a greater likelihood of the People to allow more control to an expanding government.

What I would like to see is a decision that affirms the unrestricted right of people to keep and bear arms, AND form well regulated militias at the local level to make communities less reliant upon parceled out government security.

That this decision will come so close to the November 08 elections intrigues me. It could be a decision that shapes the future of the nation politically.

[robertpaulsen]

"This implies that even under Miller, which the Liberals have mischaracterized for 60 years, would protect weapons used by the military."

Correct. Which makes for an odd ruling for those proclaiming an individual right. Even the 1st Circuit Court in Cases v United States, 1942, said:

"Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."

[TigersEye]

Those who believe that individual rights are more important than public safety often side with reduced gun control laws. On the other hand, those that think other individuals are unable to control their own behaviors, and therefore the law needs to influence the gun supply, would certainly side with increased government control of firearms.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

Ben was such a diplomat. He neglected to comment on what they would deserve. Deserving or not there is a natural consequence to surrendering liberty and the means to defend it.

[DoughtyOne]

Well it would endear me to them. It would drive the moonbats away in droves. I’d like to think there are more of us than them, but in today’s USA, it’s a close call.

[SunkenCiv]

Later, this spike decreased substantially

...and yet, the spin-doctor author this hit piece still calls it a "spike". What a maroon. Thanks neverdem.

[archy]

You wrote: “FA are not illegal.”

I wrote no such thing. But, in fact, they are not, though there are several regulatory hoops through jump and the bureaucratic process can be quite time consuming...unless DOD REALLY wants samples of your product and you have to tell them *Sorry, buddy- the paperwork is being delayed by BATFE.* It's amazing how quick red tape can then be *waivered.*

And then gave a link to a site that does not sell legal FA.

I needed to clear up your error. There was no error. Your statement in post #51 stated that parts kits that are useless without the registered component (receiver/tube) that the law calls a “machine gun.”

I posted information leading to and illustrrating a perfectly legal use for those parts and a semi-auto receiver component.

And those cost thousands of dollars to buy and are illetgal to make.

Expensive, yes, in some instances... but not at all necessarily thereby *illetgal.*

[ctdonath2]

I’ve a quirky sense, actually an expectation, the court is prepared to issue a decision with extraordinary emphasis on the state rather than the individual. I hope my expectation is proved unfounded.

SCOTUS has already explicitly ejected the "state-controlled militia" angle in the question which they (not DC) wrote. Heller is now entirely about whether DC's prohibitions infringe on private, personal, individual RKBA. To wit:

Whether the following provisions - D.C. Code §§ 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 - violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

SCOTUS made a lot of major statements in that question.

[archy]

Another objection to the rule of the Miller case as a full and general statement is that according to it Congress would be prevented by the Second Amendment from regulating the possession or use by private persons not present or prospective members of any military unit, of distinctly military arms, such as machine guns, trench mortars, anti-tank or anti-aircraft guns, even though under the circumstances surrounding such possession or use it would be inconceivable that a private person could have any legitimate reason for having such a weapon. It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result."

Do you reckon any of those *framers* knew bookseller and amateur artillerist Henry Knox, the Father of American Artillery, whose birthday on 25 July is celebrated by officers of the U.S. Army's Artillery Branch at Fort Sill every year?

Anyone care to take bets on what current weapons would reside in the personal armory...or garage...of Henry Knox today?

[ctdonath2]

It seems to us unlikely that the framers of the Amendment intended any such result.

As the authors of the 2ndA had just completed a revolution, and did so with non-trivial supply of PRIVATELY-owned cannons, battleships, and other heavy arms, it seems to us likely that the framers of the Amendment intended exactly such result.

[ctdonath2]

Uh, guys, check your reference & quotes & attributions. It’s tiger-one that wrote “FA are not illegal”. Methinks you’re arguing at cross-purposes.