CHL’s – violation of rights or reasonable restriction?

[jimlongley]

However, I do find all this talk of wanting 'no' restrictions interesting. I understand the fear of the ever moving line - I get that. But this fear paralyzes and polarizes both sides of all contentious issues. The term 'arms' now encompasses weaponry that is orders of magnitude more powerful than what the framers could have possibly imagined.

It seems that majority of us are at least 'ok' with legal restrictions on ownership by convicted felons and those with certain diagnosed mental health conditions. But some have argued that, if it wasn't impossible, there should be no legal restrictions on having a nuke in your backyard. Perhaps that example is so extreme that it fails even be taken seriously.

But I wonder about grenade launchers. How many would argue for the right to openly carry a grenade launcher through Wal-Mart? Or what about pineapple grenades clipped you a belt - concealed? Those would not generate a panic because they would be out of sight. Forget about criminal purposes, isn't it prudent to weigh the damage risk from an ND against the potential benefit of an intentional discharge? Or am I just drinking too much leftist cool-aid again?

Since grenades, and methods of launching them, if not in existence at the time of the framing of the Constitution, at least within imagination.s bounds; and Franklin himself was working on machine guns; and since cannon were common in private hands; and since the framers themselves were quite imaginative, as evidenced by their other writings and pursuits; the only thing that they are unlikely to be unable to imagine is atomic or other superweapons.

I still argue for felons to lose their rights under the Constitution, and those not mentally competent to be protected by a separate set of rules, which, of course brings in a whole new line to be drawn, and subject to further debate.

And I still wonder why not grenade launchers, which are already legal to own, if we were like other states where open carry is common enough as to be unremarkable and grenade launchers were commonly carried, then they would be equally unremarkable. Of course that is unlikely to ever happen, and I, personally, would question the need to carry such an item, but it's still not a line I am willing to draw. Here's an example: I have a friend in IL who owns a quarry where he lets people shoot at "targets of opportunity" that they have brought along; washing machines, TVs, all kinds of junk, which he then sifts through to find salvageables and hazmat (hazmat is against his range rules, but . . .) and maybe the guy carrying the M79 over his shoulder while wandering through Wal-Mart, just came from the range, and didn't feel like leaving it in the car while he shopped. Again, the defensive utility of such an item, as well as cannon and grenades, might be questionable on a one to one basis, but in the post Rodney King rioting, maybe not a bad idea.

And NDs should be severely punished, whether it's a .22LR, or a 5 inch 38 calibers gun. Admittedly the destructive potential is much higher with the 5" but the numbers of people able to afford and willing to carry grenade launchers, or keep a 5" mount at home are going to be exponentially smaller than the people carrying "conventional" man portable arms, reducing the ND potential by similar amounts.

[terryg]

Since grenades, and methods of launching them, if not in existence at the time of the framing of the Constitution, at least within imagination.s bounds; and Franklin himself was working on machine guns; and since cannon were common in private hands; and since the framers themselves were quite imaginative, as evidenced by their other writings and pursuits; the only thing that they are unlikely to be unable to imagine is atomic or other superweapons.

I still argue for felons to lose their rights under the Constitution, and those not mentally competent to be protected by a separate set of rules, which, of course brings in a whole new line to be drawn, and subject to further debate.

And I still wonder why not grenade launchers, which are already legal to own, if we were like other states where open carry is common enough as to be unremarkable and grenade launchers were commonly carried, then they would be equally unremarkable. Of course that is unlikely to ever happen, and I, personally, would question the need to carry such an item, but it's still not a line I am willing to draw. Here's an example: I have a friend in IL who owns a quarry where he lets people shoot at "targets of opportunity" that they have brought along; washing machines, TVs, all kinds of junk, which he then sifts through to find salvageables and hazmat (hazmat is against his range rules, but . . .) and maybe the guy carrying the M79 over his shoulder while wandering through Wal-Mart, just came from the range, and didn't feel like leaving it in the car while he shopped. Again, the defensive utility of such an item, as well as cannon and grenades, might be questionable on a one to one basis, but in the post Rodney King rioting, maybe not a bad idea.

And NDs should be severely punished, whether it's a .22LR, or a 5 inch 38 calibers gun. Admittedly the destructive potential is much higher with the 5" but the numbers of people able to afford and willing to carry grenade launchers, or keep a 5" mount at home are going to be exponentially smaller than the people carrying "conventional" man portable arms, reducing the ND potential by similar amounts.

Wow Jim - great counter. Those are some really good points.

Just to clarify things further - how do you feel about the current federal restrictions on fully automatic weapons? Both the federal sale and transfer registration, and the tax aspects? Reasonable restrictions or not? What if the tax was gone (or lowered to a fee - like the fee for AOW) - would that change the equation for you? Does the close monitoring have any effect, even a tiny one, in keeping FA weapons out of criminals hands? By itself, would the close federal monitoring on these transactions cross the infringement line?

(Forget SBS's for a minute. If the equation is balancing SD usefulness against the possibility of mass harm; I can see where a FA weapon, while a blast to shoot, would tip the equation. The same equation, however, would not hold up for SBS's. They can be extremely useful in a SD situation.)

[VoiceofReason]

Restricting full auto is puzzling when us forces allowed iraqis to have full auto AK in their houses. Are Iraqis more secure with full auto then US citizens ?

Allow me to attempt to answer your post and the post by baldeagle Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:49 pm.

To begin with U.S. forces are not in the position to allow or not allow Iraqis to have anything. Iraq still is a sovereign country. We are not there to disarm the entire country. We are attempting to disarm and capture the insurgents. I would not want to live as the Iraqis or Afghanis do for the freedom for everyone to legally have full auto AKs.

As to the issue with automatic weapons, at one time citizens could legally own Thompson sub-machine guns and BARs. Thanks to Al Capone and other criminals of that time, the federal government saw fit to place reasonable restrictions on the fire power citizens could posses.

I personally hope I or my family are never within ten blocks if people ever open up on each other with full auto weapons, grenade launchers, LAWS rockets or other such hardware. Maybe these laws have reduced the chances of that happening somewhat.

As long as people live together there is a need for laws that restrict freedoms to some extent. The ongoing issue is to what degree. That will be a never ending debate as it should be.

The only way a person could possibly be totally free to have what he or she wants and to do anything he or she wants with no permits would be to live hundreds of miles from any other person.

[jimlongley]

Since grenades, and methods of launching them, if not in existence at the time of the framing of the Constitution, at least within imagination.s bounds; and Franklin himself was working on machine guns; and since cannon were common in private hands; and since the framers themselves were quite imaginative, as evidenced by their other writings and pursuits; the only thing that they are unlikely to be unable to imagine is atomic or other superweapons.

I still argue for felons to lose their rights under the Constitution, and those not mentally competent to be protected by a separate set of rules, which, of course brings in a whole new line to be drawn, and subject to further debate.

And I still wonder why not grenade launchers, which are already legal to own, if we were like other states where open carry is common enough as to be unremarkable and grenade launchers were commonly carried, then they would be equally unremarkable. Of course that is unlikely to ever happen, and I, personally, would question the need to carry such an item, but it's still not a line I am willing to draw. Here's an example: I have a friend in IL who owns a quarry where he lets people shoot at "targets of opportunity" that they have brought along; washing machines, TVs, all kinds of junk, which he then sifts through to find salvageables and hazmat (hazmat is against his range rules, but . . .) and maybe the guy carrying the M79 over his shoulder while wandering through Wal-Mart, just came from the range, and didn't feel like leaving it in the car while he shopped. Again, the defensive utility of such an item, as well as cannon and grenades, might be questionable on a one to one basis, but in the post Rodney King rioting, maybe not a bad idea.

And NDs should be severely punished, whether it's a .22LR, or a 5 inch 38 calibers gun. Admittedly the destructive potential is much higher with the 5" but the numbers of people able to afford and willing to carry grenade launchers, or keep a 5" mount at home are going to be exponentially smaller than the people carrying "conventional" man portable arms, reducing the ND potential by similar amounts.

Wow Jim - great counter. Those are some really good points.

Just to clarify things further - how do you feel about the current federal restrictions on fully automatic weapons? Both the federal sale and transfer registration, and the tax aspects? Reasonable restrictions or not? What if the tax was gone (or lowered to a fee - like the fee for AOW) - would that change the equation for you? Does the close monitoring have any effect, even a tiny one, in keeping FA weapons out of criminals hands? By itself, would the close federal monitoring on these transactions cross the infringement line?

(Forget SBS's for a minute. If the equation is balancing SD usefulness against the possibility of mass harm; I can see where a FA weapon, while a blast to shoot, would tip the equation. The same equation, however, would not hold up for SBS's. They can be extremely useful in a SD situation.)

The federal restrictions, and the several states' laws, have never been proved to have stopped anyone from committing a crime with a fully automatic firearm. Just like other such prohibitions, the only people really affected are those disposed to obey the law.

When the big shootout happened in North Hollywood, and ran live on TV, I happened to be home, and turned to my wife and said "Don't those guys know those guns are illegal in CA?" Despite the seriousness of the situation, she giggled, and I even went so far as to email several news outlets - I was never quoted.

The fee is an infringement, which could have been overturned if Miller had been represented at SCOTUS, it is charging money to exercise that which is a right, making it a privilege, which is an infringement.

Once again, although certainly impractical for one on one self-defense, and expensive to practice with, fully automatic weapons could have a place in a post Rodney King riot, or holding off looters in a large natural disaster, so once again, the line prevents me from being able to defend myself and family and property to the utmost in EVERY foreseeable circumstance.

I have used FA weapons, and particularly enjoy Thompsons and BARs but despite my personal desire to own such a thing, my full length barreled shotgun is my goto gun for serious social situations. I have proved that I can keep an entire magazine in the black at 7 yards with a Thompson, but one shot with my .45 or shotgun is going to have much less possibility that a round is going to escape my control (insert ironic smiley) and do something I don't want it to do. I don't even see that much utility, personally for an SBS, although I don't have a problem with others basing their home defense tactics on them, and once again, the fee represents an infringement.

No, when I say no line, I pretty much mean no line. As a matter of fact, I can't think of a suitable line, so it's well beyond "pretty much" and more like, flat out, no line.

[VoiceofReason]

The state shouldn't even exist, much less license things.

Name one country in the world that doesn't have a government-then tell me if you would want to live there.

The "non aggression principal” sounds idyllic but human nature is such that there will always be someone that will strive to dominate others through force for personal wealth and power.

That is down to earth, realistic fact.

[jester]

The state shouldn't even exist, much less license things.

Name one country in the world that doesn't have a government-then tell me if you would want to live there.

I think that discussion already got locked.

[jimlongley]

Restricting full auto is puzzling when us forces allowed iraqis to have full auto AK in their houses. Are Iraqis more secure with full auto then US citizens ?

Allow me to attempt to answer your post and the post by baldeagle Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:49 pm.

To begin with U.S. forces are not in the position to allow or not allow Iraqis to have anything. Iraq still is a sovereign country. We are not there to disarm the entire country. We are attempting to disarm and capture the insurgents. I would not want to live as the Iraqis or Afghanis do for the freedom for everyone to legally have full auto AKs.

As to the issue with automatic weapons, at one time citizens could legally own Thompson sub-machine guns and BARs. Thanks to Al Capone and other criminals of that time, the federal government saw fit to place reasonable restrictions on the fire power citizens could posses.

I personally hope I or my family are never within ten blocks if people ever open up on each other with full auto weapons, grenade launchers, LAWS rockets or other such hardware. Maybe these laws have reduced the chances of that happening somewhat.

As long as people live together there is a need for laws that restrict freedoms to some extent. The ongoing issue is to what degree. That will be a never ending debate as it should be.

The only way a person could possibly be totally free to have what he or she wants and to do anything he or she wants with no permits would be to live hundreds of miles from any other person.

Since those laws did nothing at all to prevent Al Capone and his ilk from having full auto weapons, how, exactly were the restrictions reasonable, and how, exactly, did they reduce the chances?

I obviously disagree with your estimate of mileage, mostly because I believe in personal responsibility, and that the government's "reasonable restrictions" are unreasonable.

And then there's the other issue I love to get into semantic debates about: "FIREPOWER"; If ever there was a misused term, that is a shining example. The shooting in McKinney a few days ago would be a great point if the shooter had been shot by police - here's a guy who fired more than a hundred rounds, and all he managed to do is hit the broad side of a building, and if a LEO had taken him down with a handgun, which one would have had more "firepower"?

Firepower is a function of shots on target, not rounds per minute. Only hits count, so if you stand at the other end of a football field and empty a magazine out of an Uzi at me, and I drop you with one shot from my 1903-A3, which one of us has more firepower? I have yet to find one person who would take me up on the challenge to meet me at the range with a submachine gun and see which one of us put more hits on target at the relatively short range of 100 yards.

That one word ranks above "clips or magazines" (and I do know the difference) for me, with "point blank" right up there too.

[VoiceofReason]

Restricting full auto is puzzling when us forces allowed iraqis to have full auto AK in their houses. Are Iraqis more secure with full auto then US citizens ?

Allow me to attempt to answer your post and the post by baldeagle Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:49 pm.

To begin with U.S. forces are not in the position to allow or not allow Iraqis to have anything. Iraq still is a sovereign country. We are not there to disarm the entire country. We are attempting to disarm and capture the insurgents. I would not want to live as the Iraqis or Afghanis do for the freedom for everyone to legally have full auto AKs.

As to the issue with automatic weapons, at one time citizens could legally own Thompson sub-machine guns and BARs. Thanks to Al Capone and other criminals of that time, the federal government saw fit to place reasonable restrictions on the fire power citizens could posses.

I personally hope I or my family are never within ten blocks if people ever open up on each other with full auto weapons, grenade launchers, LAWS rockets or other such hardware. Maybe these laws have reduced the chances of that happening somewhat.

As long as people live together there is a need for laws that restrict freedoms to some extent. The ongoing issue is to what degree. That will be a never ending debate as it should be.

The only way a person could possibly be totally free to have what he or she wants and to do anything he or she wants with no permits would be to live hundreds of miles from any other person.

Since those laws did nothing at all to prevent Al Capone and his ilk from having full auto weapons, how, exactly were the restrictions reasonable, and how, exactly, did they reduce the chances?

I obviously disagree with your estimate of mileage, mostly because I believe in personal responsibility, and that the government's "reasonable restrictions" are unreasonable.

And then there's the other issue I love to get into semantic debates about: "FIREPOWER"; If ever there was a misused term, that is a shining example. The shooting in McKinney a few days ago would be a great point if the shooter had been shot by police - here's a guy who fired more than a hundred rounds, and all he managed to do is hit the broad side of a building, and if a LEO had taken him down with a handgun, which one would have had more "firepower"?

Firepower is a function of shots on target, not rounds per minute. Only hits count, so if you stand at the other end of a football field and empty a magazine out of an Uzi at me, and I drop you with one shot from my 1903-A3, which one of us has more firepower? I have yet to find one person who would take me up on the challenge to meet me at the range with a submachine gun and see which one of us put more hits on target at the relatively short range of 100 yards.

That one word ranks above "clips or magazines" (and I do know the difference) for me, with "point blank" right up there too.

Am I mistaken or were laws passed restricting fully automatic weapons after Capone and his ilk used them to shoot up each other, the police and the general public.

If you have your 1903-A3 and I have a grenade launcher, who has more firepower?