Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: CA and AWB

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,886
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BoringGuy45 View Post
    The arguments the various circuit courts have made for upholding the bans are very weak: Some courts have ruled that the 2nd only protects sporting weapons. Others ruled that the 2nd does indeed protect semiautomatic rifles, but that the government has the right to ignore constitutional rights if they feel that it's in the best interests of the country to do so.
    And that is why more than anything else somebody needs to go on the offensive and get rid of the sporter clause. Strike that from the 1968 GCA and the ability of anyone to "rule by decree" is gone.

    The "sporter clause" needs to become the "roe v. wade" of the second amendment community and then a "never again" posture. For 50+ years the government has been able to declare what firearms are "suitable for private ownership" and what guns are not, this is the greatest level of infringement that has ever existed.

    People get caught up with the NFA but that is nothing compared to the "sporter clause." Sadly few people understand this.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    And that is why more than anything else somebody needs to go on the offensive and get rid of the sporter clause. Strike that from the 1968 GCA and the ability of anyone to "rule by decree" is gone.

    The "sporter clause" needs to become the "roe v. wade" of the second amendment community and then a "never again" posture. For 50+ years the government has been able to declare what firearms are "suitable for private ownership" and what guns are not, this is the greatest level of infringement that has ever existed.

    People get caught up with the NFA but that is nothing compared to the "sporter clause." Sadly few people understand this.
    Seems to me that even under Miller "sporting purposes" is prime for strike-down, the problem is getting a test case. (Then again, you could say the same about Hughes given how virtually every man and dog on the modern battlefield has a select-fire weapon...)
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    17,383
    Feedback Score
    0
    The Scalia comments on M16s is difficult, but somewhere I read that the comment is in the ‘dicta’ and not in the core ruling.

    It seems like pointing out that:
    1. The military uses auto loader handguns, pump and semi shotguns too. If the rationale is that a gun is useful in military service and therefore can be banned, there are very few guns that wouldn’t be able to be banned.
    2. The M4/16 as it is today isn’t leading civilian technology, it is derived from civilian shooters. Free-floated rails, two-stage triggers, red dot sights and even the ammo mk262 came from civilian shooting competitions. They are not military weapons in the hands of civilians, they are 3-gamer guns put onto the battlefield. Never mind that the 223/556 came from the civilian varmint round. There is actually a long history of civilian arms innovations being applied to military arms, starting with the rifling of the barrel.

    Isn’t going to sway anyone. All they hear is m16s are bad, I can’t tell the difference, bam them all.
    The Second Amendment ACKNOWLEDGES our right to own and bear arms that are in common use that can be used for lawful purposes. The arms can be restricted ONLY if subject to historical analogue from the founding era or is dangerous (unsafe) AND unusual.

    It's that simple.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    The South
    Posts
    4,420
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    And that is why more than anything else somebody needs to go on the offensive and get rid of the sporter clause. Strike that from the 1968 GCA and the ability of anyone to "rule by decree" is gone.

    The "sporter clause" needs to become the "roe v. wade" of the second amendment community and then a "never again" posture. For 50+ years the government has been able to declare what firearms are "suitable for private ownership" and what guns are not, this is the greatest level of infringement that has ever existed.

    People get caught up with the NFA but that is nothing compared to the "sporter clause." Sadly few people understand this.

    Agreed. 925(d)(3) must go.
    SLG Defense 07/02 FFL/SOT

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by FromMyColdDeadHand View Post
    The Scalia comments on M16s is difficult, but somewhere I read that the comment is in the ‘dicta’ and not in the core ruling.

    It seems like pointing out that:
    1. The military uses auto loader handguns, pump and semi shotguns too. If the rationale is that a gun is useful in military service and therefore can be banned, there are very few guns that wouldn’t be able to be banned.
    2. The M4/16 as it is today isn’t leading civilian technology, it is derived from civilian shooters. Free-floated rails, two-stage triggers, red dot sights and even the ammo mk262 came from civilian shooting competitions. They are not military weapons in the hands of civilians, they are 3-gamer guns put onto the battlefield. Never mind that the 223/556 came from the civilian varmint round. There is actually a long history of civilian arms innovations being applied to military arms, starting with the rifling of the barrel.

    Isn’t going to sway anyone. All they hear is m16s are bad, I can’t tell the difference, bam them all.
    And here again, Miller was rooted on "anything common military use is protected, all this stuff in NFA isn't common-use."
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,886
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Seems to me that even under Miller "sporting purposes" is prime for strike-down, the problem is getting a test case. (Then again, you could say the same about Hughes given how virtually every man and dog on the modern battlefield has a select-fire weapon...)
    The problem is it took the Cato Institute to bring us Heller. For whatever reason the NRA is unable / unwilling to go on the offensive with the 1968 GCA and the sporter clause. This is compounded by the fact that probably 90% of the NRA membership thinks FOPA was "just a machine gun ban."

    Nobody is educated, nobody is informed and as a result nobody is motivated in the proper direction. Go on ordinary forums like Glocktalk and you will probably find more people who know the details of pluto and it's status as a dwarf planet than you will people who even know what was in the 1968 GCA before and after FOPA.

    There was organization, coordination and consensus when it came to moving conceal carry laws forward and getting some level of reciprocity among "normal people" states. So we've seen that it can be done. But when it comes to black rifles and things like taking on the 1968 GCA we seem to lack the courage of even the "gay pride" crowd and we have too many gun owners who want to stay in the closet with their modern carbines.

    Granted the OC rifles guys frequently come off as fringe and LARPers but we need to stand up the way gay rights activists demanded that even the assless chaps contingent of the movement must be respected. So long as the "professional image" guys aren't willing to sit in the front of the bus, nobody will take notice and everyone will assume there is something wrong with those "other guys."

    The average guy doesn't need to become an "activist" but we probably need to stop throwing the guys who do under the bus. So long as their activism is legal or nothing more than civil disobedience we need to realize they are the vanguard until someone better steps up.

    We are hampered by the fact that we can't engage in illegal / violent activism to get our way like some extremists in the 60s were able to do, so we need to at least be doing everything we can. In a perfect world CA would be harshly criticized for trampling the rights of their citizens to the same level as any state would that decided to ban abortions.

    Sadly the firearms community can be terribly divisive and we split not only along lines of what is considered an "acceptable firearm" but also along all political, social and religious lines.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,886
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by JoshNC View Post
    Agreed. 925(d)(3) must go.

    Sadly that doesn't lend itself to a catchy chant or soundbite.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by SteyrAUG View Post
    Sadly that doesn't lend itself to a catchy chant or soundbite.
    Hey hey, ho ho
    925d3 has got to go!



    --modeled after the Berserkeley rioting over their Western Civ course requirement
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    33,886
    Feedback Score
    3 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Diamondback View Post
    Hey hey, ho ho
    925d3 has got to go!



    --modeled after the Berserkeley rioting over their Western Civ course requirement
    Even I refuse to participate in any "Hey hey, ho ho" activist chant. I so detest that phrase I don't think I could adequately explain it. Now if we could figure out a way to incorporate "sporter clause" into the refrain from "the roof is on fire" we might just have something.
    It's hard to be a ACLU hating, philosophically Libertarian, socially liberal, fiscally conservative, scientifically grounded, agnostic, porn admiring gun owner who believes in self determination.

    Chuck, we miss ya man.

    كافر

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    SeattHELL, Soviet Socialist S***hole of Washington
    Posts
    8,404
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Steyr, maybe there's something wrong with me that I just love that extra "twist of the knife" of using the very weapons the Left taught me against them, openly reveling in being a "traitor to their cause."
    <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
    Ye best start believin' in Orwellian Dystopias, mateys... yer LIVIN' in one!--after Capt. Hector Barbossa
    Psalms 109:8, 43:1
    LIFE MEMBER - NRA & SAF; FPC MEMBER Not employed or sponsored by any manufacturer, distributor or retailer.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •