Sharpe
7906
Yeah any law like this is going to need definitions and exceptions. Nothing is ever that easy. On the other I think it can be done more clearly than CA did. Note - I think the CA law in question was definitely Constitutional, just not optimally written.
CraigM
7907
Not to judges owned by the NRA. Which is a lot of them, sadly.
One more of the odious legacies of Mitch McConnell.
The thing is, ultimately the arguments all come down to interpreting the 2nd Amendment. And we do this at a fundamentally flawed and usually utterly contradictory level. Either you can or you cannot own a firearm. There is no provision in the constitutional right to bear arms defining what kind of weapon, or arms, is meant. You can make the argument, therefore, that any limitation on weapon ownership–by type, quantity, function–is forbidden. Even the fervent gun rights supporters don’t necessarily lobby for everyone to be able to own automatic weapons and RPGs, though. But by allowing that sort of exclusion, you are either acknowledging that the 2nd Amendment does not convey an absolute right, or you are saying that it is in effect just a guideline–which opens op the field to any form of limitation, really.
In other words, we have a generally agreed on sense that some weapons are off the table, but no constitutional logic for why that is so. I mean, if you are really talking about “homeland defense,” like that judge in California, you WANT people to have SAWs and LAWs and all that. Hell, mortars, too!
Yup. Which is why my arbitrary line is, revolvers, shotguns, and those old fashioned deer hunting rifles. Basically shit that’s good enough for hunting and home defense and target practice, and limited in both clip capacity and reload speed. (To people whose hobbies require something better, I reply: find another hobby. I know a good tennis coach.)
It’s never gonna happen, but my arbitrary line is still set way higher than any kind of firearm the Founders had access to!
If we really want 2A to guarantee the right to overthrow the government, we should probably at least allow RPGs, tanks, heavy machine guns, and vintage/decommissioned military aircraft with surplus ordnance. Maybe we should spot them a few old forts or something too, so they can have someplace to train and muster etc. Assuming we want the overthrowers to have a fighting chance (even then they’d be vastly outgunned vs. the professional Armed Forces…).
If you want to read the 2A as broadly as possible, ordinary citizens should have access to anything the military has today. There are no limitations in that text.
ShivaX
7911
I suspect the Founding Fathers would be horrified that States didn’t have their own tanks, attack helicopters, F-22s and ATM-armed militias.
Not an unreasonable thought, given how the pre-Civil War USA was for much of the pre-war period really a collection of pretty much sovereign state governments loosely organized under a weak and often ineffectual federal government.
Don’t states have those things? Through their state National Guard entities?
George Washington had no truck with local militias the moment he became president. CF the Whiskey Rebellion…
Yet those militias remained throughout the early republic all the way up to the Civil War. They were the core of the army we would mobilize for things like the War of 1812, the Mexican War, and the Civil War itself. As long as the states didn’t directly oppose federal law with force, as Calhoun threatened unsuccessfully to do later on, the federal government was a strong supporter of state militias, if only because it meant it didn’t have to spend any money on an army.
Gee big surprise. A Republican judge into conspiracy theories and other bullshit.
I would only quibble with the word “core” here. Militias and volunteer regiments were used to swell the numbers in need, but I would say the core was provided by the regular army and trained officers (especially West Pointers, at least in the mid 19th century and beyond) that preserved institutional knowledge.
Yeah, the few regulars were indeed the cadre around which an effective force got built. By core in this sense I’m speaking in more broad terms, in that the militias and volunteers formed the bulk of the manpower. But in most cases, for sure, the actual soldiers who knew what they were doing were the regulars at first.
This is one of the concerns I’ve stated in this very thread about the fantasy that good guys with guns are the solutions to our gun violence. I true good guy with a gun gets shot and killed by responding officers in a tragic situation.
Proponents of the good guy with a gun theory as a large-scale solution fall in two camps to me: 1) people know who it is B.S. and simply use it to deflect and distract and 2) those who foolishly think real-life emergencies are like some turn-based tactical combat video game where everyone has complete situational awareness and all the time in the world to plan moves. It’s funny that a lot of the group 2 folks are also dismissive of law enforcement gun skills/knowledge and often fantasize that they (and every other random Joe) would do better than the cops would in situations like this.
Real world emergencies, even minor ones are incredibly chaotic. No one knows what’s going on and people start reacting on very little information. Friendly fire situations are extremely common. “Good guy with a gun” is a recipe for disaster, as a large-scale, policy approach to our gun violence.
Menzo
7922
This is kinda what I expected. Remington is a big company and I did not think they would purposefully troll any litigant. Risking judges getting mad at you is not a sound legal strategy.
ShivaX
7923
Pretty much. If they hadn’t sent what they did, then the Plaintiffs would be asking “What’s in the stuff you didn’t give us?!?!” And it’s unlikely the judge would view “mostly memes and nonsense” as a viable response.
So they did what they were told to, with expected results.
ShivaX
7926
Kind of an interesting case imo.
Basically New York requires “[T]he applicant must demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community to satisfy the proper cause standard."
These groups are LGTBA, Black and women. They, rightly by just about any standard, claim that they fit the bill. They are all groups that need more protection than the general community. Also they point out how the law was mostly used to disarm immigrants and minorities, because that’s how these things almost always get used.
A big chunk of the brief is a history lesson on how this statute has been used to those ends and is depressing, yet interesting.
The idea of “good cause” carry permits is one with a shitty history. Basically every redneck ever can get one easily and if you’re too dark or too queer, well the sheriff doesn’t think you need one. But your racist neighbor? He’s an upstanding dude and the sheriff’s old drinking buddy, so good luck.
