Justification for Ban on Automatic Weapons?

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by sxane, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. sxane

    sxane New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    I understand that the 1986 FOPA bill banned post 1987 machine guns from private ownership. What is the constitutional basis for this? I know DC v Heller used "common use" to justify the legality and illegality of gun ownership, but what would have been the justification before that case? Why is any gun regulation constitutional?

    Bonus question: I'm very skeptical of the SCOTUS. Other than a 5-4 decision, which easily could have gone the other way, how do you defend the regulation of gun ownership?
     
  2. maat

    maat Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
    Messages:
    6,911
    Likes Received:
    282
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Very, very few representatives in the three branches respect and obey the constraints and intent of the Constitution. 5-4 decisions are an example of this corruption.

    The 2nd is simple and specific. No infringing. Guns should be treated as hammers, just a tool with no restrictions. Hyperbole has led many to believe this would be devastating to society, but would likely have no noticeable difference.
     
    Shook likes this.
  3. Pooblius

    Pooblius New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2016
    Messages:
    403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is none.
     
  4. MRogersNhood

    MRogersNhood Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2015
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    None.
    They were worried about the "Cocaine Cowboys" at the time.That ruling can pretty much be lumped in with "War on drugs"
    Americans lost rights, though.
     
  5. Operative13

    Operative13 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2015
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Most of the time the bans are made based on the fact that Congress has the power to regulate interstate trade. Anything that goes across state borders is fair game for the Federal Government to regulate, and to be blunt, the whole premise of basing a lot of our decisions to personally regulate state laws based on that economic management clause is next-to-complete madness. It's a loophole that needs to be fixed sooner or later, and it's specifically because of that loophole that state and federal laws don't match up, just like the whole marijuana legalization issue (Despite the fact federal laws are supposed to override state laws, but that's another talk for later). Same thing with guns. They wrote it in very simple terms that the people have the right to take up weapons on the premise that the US should retain a militia. There is no militia if you don't have weapons to arm the people with, hence they left it to the people themselves to bear whatever arms they happen to have. At least that's the argument back then.

    Even though it's stated explicitly that the right "shall not be infringed," these loopholes in other parts of the Constitution allows the government to make so-called "exceptions" to the rule. No longer is the attitude that we should possess a "militia," which would include everyone who owns a weapon of some sort, firearm or not, but rather total reliance on the military to provide for the safety of the people, which I personally believe is a terrible mistake. If you're going to permit even the smallest of firearms, at least have the galls to provide the proper oversight for it. That includes background checks and training. Switzerland requires all its citizens to undergo training and keep firearms around, and they don't have any problems with them. The complete lack of responsibility of our government to support gun ownership as part of their responsibility to protect constitutional rights is utterly astonishing to me. That's how people who shouldn't get guns still get guns because the government doesn't provide proper oversight. That's how accidental firearm deaths occur, because of lack of training, and that's how massacres are able to occur so easily in a gun-permitting country when citizens are discouraged from owning firearms themselves. It's a total mindcluster of contradictions and bad policy.
     
  6. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no rational justification for the post-5/86 ban. This should be lifted.
     
    Doofenshmirtz likes this.
  7. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The ban can be nullified somewhat on the State level, The Legal Precedent, as was done with the Legalization of Medical and Recreational Marijuana, The States made it Legal, not the Federal Government.

    The 1986 Ban violates States commerce on the basis of prohibiting the manufacture of something that is Legal to own.

    Each State can Legalize the manufacture of Machine Guns for that State.
     
  8. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And as has been seen, the authorities in those states are still carrying out raids on legal and medical marijuana dispensaries regardless of their state level legality.
     
  9. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is Immaterial and Irrelevant to the Importance of Legal Precedent in this case, The Federal Government has Not been able to reverse any States decission in the Marijuana issue except to exclude Interstate Commerce under RICO revisited, this is why those cases were prosecuted as per source, not origin.
     
  10. sxane

    sxane New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2015
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    1
    So criminals should be allowed to have fully automatic guns? How wouldn't that lead to chaos?
     
  11. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Simply because the federal government has not yet done such, does not mean that they lack either the willingness or authority to undertake such an approach to control over the states. Various states have attempted to declare that federal firearm regulations will not apply in their territory, and those efforts have been shot down.
     
  12. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are Obtuse, is it Deliberate ?

    When you apply for an FFL, it is for applicable INTERSTATE commerce primarily, not just Intrastate commerce only, since the Federal Ban on manufacture of Machine Guns only applies Nationally, and the States respect a General application of the Machine Gun Ban, it has not been openly challenged as has happened with SUCCESSFULLY with Marijuana, which has been a complete success, and You can deny it if you wish, However, it changes absolutely nothing.
     
  13. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Then show us a state that has declared federal firearm regulations to not apply within its territory, and given the go ahead for the construction and sale of new machine guns within state territory.
     
  14. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    there is none. a bitter anti gun congressman named Bill Hughes was upset that the bipartisan Firearms Owners Protection Act was going to pass. One thing that bill did was to prevent a person traveling from say Pennsylvania to NY could not be arrested for having an unloaded handgun in his car. Hughes was upset about that and some other provisions so he and Rangel allowed a poison pill to be improperly attached to the bill. His only argument was "no one can be against banning machine guns". The amendment didn't even properly pass but Rangel claimed it did and Mitchell, Senate Majority leader who was upset with the bill as well allowed it to remain. Reagan's counsel told him that the provision would be stripped away or thrown out by the courts and they didn't want to lose the good provisions of the bill and it was signed into law. There was no facts supporting the ban and in the last 80 years, not a single case of a legally owned machine gun being used by a private citizen for murder.

    The second amendment does not properly stop its blanket prohibition on federal action based on how fast a firearm fires. The Scalia test in Heller should include police use to prevent the government from claiming that common use which it bans prevents a gun from being protected. If the police and the national guard commonly use a weapon, it should be protected by Heller
     
  15. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Utah law, guns made, purchased and used in the state are exempt from federal laws. Commonly known as the Firearms Freedom Act, versions of the law have been debated during 78 legislative sessions across 37 states in the last decade.
     
  16. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You do not read very well do you ?

    I already stated that such a challenge has not yet been made by any State, yet.
    It is possible however, as some States have current Law that allows manufacture of Machine Guns for educational purposes, these Laws predate the 1986 ban on civilian transferable machine guns, and those Laws are still extant in those States.
     
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
  18. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,253
    Likes Received:
    20,241
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    true but there is no doubt that the commerce clause has been dishonestly expanded by the FDR administration and courts that existed subsequent to the FDR lackeys were too cowardly to actually reinstate 130 years of prior precedent. The commerce clause is one o the biggest frauds perpetrated on the American people and the states by the federal government from 1934 on


    from the decision

    His primary argument is that an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause is inconsistent with dual sovereignty, and he laments the trajectory of the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence. Marbut argues, for example, that “the Supreme Court’s Commerce Clause jurisprudence has improvidently altered the very form of American government, reading out dual sovereignty, and stripping from the States all independence of policy or action.”
     
  19. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And the supreme court recently expanded the scope of the commerce clause even further, by codifying into law the authority of the united states government to penalize the public if they choose not to buy goods they do not want, cannot afford, and have no need of.
     
  20. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    B.S. You cannot be forced to walk into a WAL*MART and be forced to buy anything, stop making crap up.
     
  21. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Have you heard of obamacare?
     
  22. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That does not count as a product you are forced to buy.
     
  23. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And yet government has the authority to force you to buy health insurance, which is indeed a product of insurance companies, or face a financial penalty for noncompliance.
     
  24. Maccabee

    Maccabee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2016
    Messages:
    8,901
    Likes Received:
    1,062
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is no justification.
     
  25. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, there is NO justification for a Ban on Automatic weapons.
     

Share This Page