On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:28:36 -0700 John Briggs <[email protected]> wrote:
> Henry E Schaffer wrote: > > > Not very realistic, IMHO. But what should be the dividing line > > between realistic and unrealistic? > > > > ... > > There is a continuum of rifle performance - a few examples: > > > > .30-'06 .300 WinMag .300 Rem UltraMag .338 LapuaMag .416 > > Barrett .50 BMG > > > > What should be the dividing line? > > > Conceding in advance the futility of this suggestion (it is too > simple andreasonable), let governments define the dividing line by > their own actions. You are right, it is too simple and reasonable. > > At very least (setting aside the military nature of the militia), the > Second Amendment protects civilian weapons in the hands of civilians. I believe that the Miller case (1939?) stands for the proposition that the weapons best protected by the 2nd Amdt are those that lead to the preservation and efficacy of the militia. If I recall correctly, the Court held that, as they had no evidence that a sawed off shotgun did lead to the preservation and efficacy of the militia, it wasn't so protected. I suggest that this was one of several things that the Framers were getting at with the prefatory part of the 2nd Amdnt itself. Another point (unlitigated as far as I know) is that the Constitution grants Congress the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal. The Framers, then, clearly contemplated privately owned and operated warships. > > In this country federal, state and local law enforcment agencies are > civilian, not military organizations. They are not trained, equipped, > or expected to wage war. I agree with you, but some of them are equipped to wage war, however ill trained for it they may be. > They are trained, equipped and expected to > suppress crime and defend against criminals who prey upon civilians. > > Accordingly, any weapon issued or authorized to law enforcement > agencies is a weapon suitable for civilians to defend against crime. > Such a weapon is not useful solely in waging war. Thus, it is a > weapon protected in the hands of civilians by the Second Amendment. However, the Framers thought that the citizens should be better armed than the government. I think it was Patrick Henry who said that where the people fear the government, there is tyranny, and where the government fears the people, there is liberty. So this establishes a simple minimal test. But a weapon not issued to police might still be protected by the 2nd Amdnt. I am not saying that I oppose your test. Rather, I suggest that either test (military or police usage) could be used, and if a weapon passes either, it is protected. > > Problem solved. > > (Except for a few details. If Montana, alone amongst federal, state, > and local governments in the US issues flamethrowers to its highway > patrol would flamethrowers be legal for civilians only in Montana or > everywhere? Maybe we could toss the gun controllers a bone and > retrict thmem to civilans there.) You can have my flamethrower when you pry it.... :-) -- Charles Curley /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ / Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com / \ No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [email protected] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
