Can anyone explain why some firearms are legal to possess, but others are illegal?

[Hugabear]

I have never heard an adequate response as to why certain firearms - ie fully automatic machine guns - should not be legal. Since the 2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed, then what gives government to ban the possession of fully automatic machine guns? Why should some firearms be legal, but others not legal?

[villager]

1. Fuck man, I've been jonesing for a tank in my driveway

...and I want a few barrels of napalm around for, you know, home protection.

How come some namby pambies made those illegal to privately possess, too?

[AtheistCrusader]

28. You can own a tank.

How can you post so much stuff you don't fact check? How can you be so wrong, all the time, I don't get it.

There's going to be restrictions, such as not running bare metal tread on public roadways, because it destroys the road, but those issues aside, you can, and people do all the time, own tanks and other self mobile artillery pieces.

[villager]

29. You can't own an operating tank, drive it down the street, and use it as a weapon.

Christ, what is it about you NRA people that you seize on the most ridiculous bits of minutiae and imagine you're affecing some kind of "argument," let alone having the least amount of "suasion" on someone's point of view?

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Use it as a weapon? No not real legally.

But yes, you can own a working tank. Some states might not allow for it, but in Oregon you can own artillery, cannons, tanks, etc. It can be working. Yes you must fill out all the forms and pay all the fees.

In Washington State, the weapons would have to be de-milled. In other states, that's not true. There's no federal law forbidding it, but it'll be classified as a destructive device because it's greater than .51 caliber.

And what is it about you that you get to label people 'NRA people' like it's some sort of smear. I am not a member of the NRA, I do not give them any money, and I do not get my marching orders from the NRA.

[baldguy]

32. Where does the 2nd Amendment say anything about the caliber of the weapon?

Seems rather arbitrary to me.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. The line is traditionally drawn between a man-portable weapon, and a crew served weapon.

Grenades, explosives, weapons of greater bore than .51 (excepting shotguns) and such are regulated not as firearms, but destructive devices.

For 'why', I would point to legal precedent. The Federal laws that establish this have been on the books for almost a century, and no one has successfully driven a review of the Constitutionality of those laws, all the way to the Supreme Court.

I don't know that anyone really cares to. I certainly don't Silencers would be nice for day at the range, but I don't feel compelled to own RPG's or anything like that.

[baldguy]

35. So it is totally arbitrary.

And the NRA is ok with that?

[AtheistCrusader]

42. IIRC, the NRA suggested and supported it.

I can't be arsed to care, the compromise was done long before I was born. If I wanted a fully automatic weapon, I'd move to a state where they are legal, and pay way too much for a legal piece of metal.

The NRA has brokered and supported many gun control measures throughout the years.

[villager]

34. Yet you seem to place a lot of faith in their positions. And by "working"

...do you mean "drive it down the street to the grocery store?"

Because that's what I mean. Yeah, sure, military collectors can obtain old, decommissioned tanks.

But we're talking active weapons here -- like the AK-47 in the nightstand, so beloved by so many in this sub-forum.

Jesus H. Christ. Knock off the picayune stuff, if you want a real conversation.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Yet you continue the sarcasm and derision.

Sort of hard to keep an AK-47 in the nightstand.

Anyway, yes, there are some real, working tanks and artillery pieces in this country. Most won't go through the actual hassle of legally obtaining the ammunition for it, but some will. I know a guy with a horse drawn cassion, complete with working cannon, that he does occasionally touch off. It's not common, permits are expensive, the background checks and whatnot would be unbelievable, but in some states, yes it can be done.

There's no magic to a tank. It's motive power, sheltering armor, and a large artillery piece, or possibly that and a coaxial machine gun. There are permits and ways to own all three in some states, I am aware of no laws that would prevent you from putting all three together, as long as you have all applicable fees, background checks and permits in place.

[county worker]

2. You should probably read the Supreme Court rulings to get an answer.

That's what most of us would do.

Now pass the popcorn.:popcorn:

[Hugabear]

4. I'm munching on some popcorn myself

I have a feeling that most of the answers I get - especially from the gun-loving crowd - will be rather snarky, and I doubt that any of them will actually give me a legitimate answer as to why certain firearms are deemed acceptable while others aren't.

[Caliman73]

23. Funny thing...

Most of the sarcasm and snark has come from the anti-firearm posters. Why is that? Most of the pro-firearms posters have directed the argument to court cases that have ruled on various weapons you may be asking about.

I would add that certain weapons are banned while others are not because the legislators in the various areas have deemed them to be too menacing and courts have upheld their decisions. As others have said, fully automatic arms are not illegal to own. They are heavily regulated and very expensive to own because banning them outright would create a situation where the constitutionality of the ban could be challenged. Most firearms owners and organizations have not gone after the 1934 act because a fully automatic firearm is not practical for hunting nor personal defense. In the case of the "assault weapons" that were banned, those were deemed unacceptable out of fear of their looks. As benEzra has pointed out many times with his Mini 14 example, the function of the so-called assault weapon is no different from the approved Mini 14 in original configuration with traditional rifle stock. Legislators, at the time, to pacify the fears of a vocal minority of people, pushed the ban through so that they could be seen as doing something. It was allowed to expire Federally as it really had no effect on the rate of firearms violence.

There are those who still argue that civilians should have access to all of the weaponry that is available to our standing military forces, but that is a very small group. Most owners are ok with being able to own traditional and semi-automatic rifles and handguns for recreation, hunting, and personal defense.

[X_Digger]

37. Interesting side note:

The 1934 NFA is a TAX law (that's why the $200 tax stamp), and until the DHS was formed, the BATFE reported to treasury, not justice.

The congresscritters of the time _knew_ they couldn't outright ban machineguns, so they taxed them heavily ($200 in 1934 was as much or more than a 'tommy gun', about 6 months wages for the average joe.)

See Sonzinsky v. United States. The US Constitution grants congress the power to legislate only on certain subjects (Article I, Section 8). General power over criminal law is not among those enumerated powers. Sonzinsky set the precedent for letting congress use it's power to 'lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises' for purposes unrelated to raising revenue.

[Caliman73]

38. yep

It's the same thing they did to Marijuana before I believe the Nixon Administration did the classification thing on drugs. They cannot legislate directly on objects so they legislate around them to make it difficult if not impossible to access things that are not approved of.

[slackmaster]

3. In 1934, Congress made a decision to regulate certain kinds of weapons as war materials

The main motivating factor was criminal misuse of automatic firearms by criminal gangs.

They're not banned BTW, just strictly regulated.

[hlthe2b]

5. Yes.. and rocket launchers! surface to air missiles! grenades!

Bradley tanks!..... These bans have just gone too far!























:sarcasm:

[rl6214]

14. Actually

It's not against the law to own a tank.

[hlthe2b]

17. Well, gee... Let me check the budget.....

That ought to take care of any aggressive drivers! LOL ;)

[rl6214]

19. Agreed

Wouldn't be any road rage against you then.

[oneshooter]

25. Hope that you have a LARGE budget!!!

Not a tank, but armored and tracked.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1943-M16A1-Halftrack-with-Fully-functional-Quad-Mount_W0QQitemZ220390606579QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMilitary_Vehicles?hash=item220390606579&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A317%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1308

Tanks are a little more money.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1944-T-34-Russian-WWII-Tank-Runs-Drives_W0QQitemZ280328844876QQcmdZViewItemQQptZMilitary_Vehicles?hash=item280328844876&_trksid=p4506.c0.m245&_trkparms=72%3A317%7C65%3A12%7C39%3A1%7C240%3A1318

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[villager]

30. They sure have! And the sky should be the fuckin' limit!

n/t

[Raskolnik]

6. Have you read Miller or Heller? n/t

[Democracyinkind]

7. And since when is the constitution the guiding principle of

.. the american day-to-day policy?
The constitution argument for guns seems very bogus to me, for so many reasons. Let's start with the fact that practically everything that the american government does is unconstitutional if you use this strict interpretation.
As long as you do not agree to the view that the american gov. should be nothing more than exactly what is granted by the const. you obviously shouldn't use that kind of argument.
If that's your belief, I don't exactly get how you subscribe to a democratic kind of view.

(you in general)

[pegdraggin]

12. Are you kidding me?

And since when is the constitution the guiding principle of
Posted by Democracyinkind

... the american day-to-day policy?


Since our country was founded, I'd dare to say.
It is, after all, the basis of our government.
Pretty much the reason we exist, and the framework for how we exist.

[Democracyinkind]

16. You are telling me the last..say..20 administrations have not

..violated the constitution in the strict sense that is applied in the pro gun argument?

[Democracyinkind]

18. Sorry, never mind, I guess you're talking about const. as in

"what the SCOTUS" says.. Then I totally have no point... forget it.

[bossy22]

40. the constitution is interpreted

with a bit of leniency

Yes you are right....almost everything done in the last 200 years could probably be seen as unconstitutional in some light but we live in real world and we cant subscribe to an ultra strict doctrine

This is not to say we shouldnt uphold the constitution with an eye for strictness, but that leniency towards legislative acts must be accompanied with that.

[safeinOhio]

8. Pretty simple

"2nd Amendment clearly states that the right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed" it was written in the late 1700s. The arms of that time, those were the arms they were talking about. They had no knowledge of automatics, tanks, nucs and what ever 200 years has changed.

[Statistical]

9. Just like the 1st ammendment only protects verbal (non electronic speech) and quills. (n/t)

[DBoon]

13. It would protect use of the printing press

and the usual mechanisms for distributing printed material, including the posting of anonymous flyers and pamphlets

The mass re-production and distribution of speech was an established fact at the time of the Bill of Rights

Speech had moved beyond quill pens many years before then

[Statistical]

21. But it is your belief that...

electronic communication is NOT protected by the 1st because it didn't exist at the time?

Email, word documents, even this forum are not protected because they are something the founders couldn't possible conceive of at the time of the Constitution.

Of course that would also include audio recordings both analog & digital as well as video recordings.

[DBoon]

39. No I didn't say that

but the mass production and distribution of speech was familiar to the writers of the Bill of Rights.

To the extent modern electronic communications are an extension of that, their vision of free speech protections would apply

[The Traveler]

15. Technological advances

are irrelevant to the question. Consider that in the late 1700s, the well armed hunter bore equivalent firepower to a British regular soldier. (Actually, British soldiers of the era might have begged to differ ... Colonial hunting guns were scary accurate for their time.) From this, we can conclude that the Framers intended the private individual be granted the right to possess firepower equivalent to Army Privates.

So later machine guns are invented. Are Army Privates to be allowed this firepower, but not the Citizen whom they allegedly protect? From the context and and the language, I think the Framers would have disagreed with that view.

Now, is it wise to have private citizens possess machine guns? That is a separate issue, one which certain judges and lawyers have skirted with some stunning twists of logic and language as they try to morph the Second Amendment into some more constraining statement. Further ... the Second Amendment grants no right to keep artillery, mobile or otherwise. We're talking about guns here ... a firearm a man or woman can carry.

My point is, if you don't like the Second Amendment, by all means get engaged and try to pass a modifying Amendment.

But do not pretend that the American citizen of 1800 did not have access to military grade weapons, and that the Framers could not have foreseen that eventuality. Indeed, in many cases, the private citizen's weapons were superior to those purchased by governments for their soldiers.

Trav

[safeinOhio]

26. Machine guns were banned because of bank robbers in the 20s

All of these question get decided by the Supreme Court, that's why we have it.

If tons of cops, etc are getting mowed down, guess what, we change what it means to protect society. The Constitution can change and be amended, including the 2nd. If things get way out of hand and everyones safety is in danger it will. That is just the way it works. Some reasonable rules now can protect us from massive changes later.

[The Traveler]

43. Not quibbling with the outcome but rather with the process

The Second Amendment was NOT changed. Rather, additional layers of interpretation from appointed wise men have been made law.

I have a problem with THAT.

I do not have a problem with a refinement of the Second Amendment that allows me to keep my Glock 45, my .22 target rifle, and my 03A3 hunting rifle while preventing me from owning my Czechoslovakian AK-47. (I don't have the AK anymore ... sold it 20 years or so ago. But you get the idea.)

But here's a deeper argument (throwing this out for discussion ... not sure what I make of it) ... indeed, the Framers clearly viewed private ownership of military grade or equivalent personal weapons as one of the checks and balances they built into the system. And an armed citizenry is better prepared to defend itself from domestic constitutional enemies ... presuming the armed citizen has not been constrained to the flint lock available in 1780. Is that not still a valid argument? If not, what conditions have changed? Should not governments always be at least a little afraid of their citizens? Or must citizens be resigned to dwell defenseless in fear of the government?

Indeed, freedom is not free. It requires tolerance of others whose exercise of freedom may be different from your own. It requires, also, an acceptance of risk.

Trav

[jeepnstein]

10. Full auto is legal.

It's more tightly regulated than the more typical firearms. There is a ban on new production since 1986 but that's a whole different can of worms. If you want full-auto all you have to do is fill out the paperwork and pay the tax. The NFA '34 would probably pass any Constitutional test.

You want a grenade? Paperwork, tax stamp, pay up sucker.

The vast majority of lawful owners of firearms never engage in criminal or anti-government activity. I have no problem with a lawful citizen owning full-auto. I have a serious issue with people who choose to commit crimes no matter what tool they choose to use.

There are some arms that are limited by international treaties that would probably land you in a bit of trouble. I can't see any rational state actor allowing you to own a nuclear device or an artillery shell loaded with nerve gas. Some folks like to push the argument over the private ownership of arms to these ridiculous extremes to make a point. I guess if you want to declare yourself a nuclear power you should also invest in proper air defense from the inevitable bomber strike coming your way.

[TheWraith]

11. I believe the argument stems from the idea of disproportionate risk.

Technically, you can't quite make a constitutionally grounded argument for the effective ban on automatic weapons that we have now because a strict reading of the constitution makes it clear that they're talking about military grade weapons. Of course back then, that meant muzzleloading smoothbore weapons and once in awhile a rifle.

But as I was saying, the argument usually put forward is that a fully automatic weapon poses a disproportionate risk versus a semi-auto one. With any semi-automatic weapon the shooter can be fully responsible for where the bullet goes. With an automatic weapon recoil makes it impossible to completely, 100% control it, thus creating the possibility that the shooter would not be fully responsible for the exact impact of the rounds.

Shotguns aren't treated the same due to their relatively short range, even though they're arguably just as deadly at realistic distances. My shotgun can pack 60 .36 caliber pellets in a maximum-capacity load of 000 buck shot, which is more lead than most full auto rifles.

Personally, I don't care that much about automatic weapons. On principle I would like to see the 1986 ban on new registrations lifted, since in a free country you need an overpoweringly good reason to ban something. The NFA system did quite well in letting people own full-autos for fun and as collectors items without them being available for use in crimes. However, that's pretty unlikely.

[Ian David]

20. Some strangeness from Massachusetts

Here are things that are illegal:

1) Blowguns
2) Slingshots
3) Double-edged knives
4) Knives over 6" long

Here are things you can buy and own without a license:

1) Bows and arrows
2) Crossbows
3) BB Guns
4) Black powder guns, including:
....a) single-shot muskets
....b) 6-shot revolvers that use pre-made black powder bullets

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. They aren't illegal. They are very highly regulated.

[jmg257]

24. Usurption of power by the govt. And one that seems would have been overturned

if Miller had been carrying a BAR instead of a sawed-off-shotgun (and hadn't croaked before appearing in front of the USSC).

Mostly usurption to create/redefine the Militia obsoleting the constitutional state miltias of the people, and usurption to infringe on secured & enumerated individual rights.

[benEzra]

27. That was settled by compromise 75 years ago, when the National Firearms Act was enacted, IMO.

Machineguns (including actual assault rifles, BTW), sawed-off shotguns, sound suppressors, over-.51-caliber firearms (except shotguns), etc. tightly controlled; non-automatic firearms under .51 caliber, plus larger-caliber shotguns, civilian-available without special authorization.

The Supreme Court in D.C. v. Heller upheld that compromise, holding that the scope of "arms" in the Second Amendment covers those "in common use for lawful purposes." Which would protect civilian handguns, shotguns, and rifles (including civilian "assault weapons"), but not automatic weapons or destructive devices.

Now, while it is clear that they phrased it that way to preserve the status quo with regard to U.S. gun laws and not rock the boat, it is a reasonable compromise, IMO.

[krispos42]

36. Public safety

Full-auto firearms, what are classified as "machine guns" by the ATF and are generally represented by machine pistols, submachine guns, assault rifles, and machine guns in the world of firearms, are too similar to explosives.

Full-auto firearms create a situation where the shooter does not have control over where bullets go. Semi-auto and manual-action firearms fire only one bullet per pull of the trigger, thus giving the shooter complete control over the bullet's flight path.

But full-auto firearms have a zone of impact instead of discrete point. One trigger pull can spray bullets in a wide arc, and only the first one is aimed. The rest of the burst goes... anyplace. Like fragments and splinters from an exploding grenade or artillery shell.


This lack of discrete targeting makes full-auto firearms enough of a public-safety issue to override Constitutional protection in the same manner that falsely yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre is not protected by the First Amendment.