Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Draker-X t1_ir7tuon wrote

Reply to comment by NormalSociety in Reported Shooting at University of Arizona by OakTeach

The pro-2A brigade will be along shortly to firing squad you for your heresy.

32

Freexscsa t1_ir839qj wrote

I have come to the conclusion that this will be the real downfall of the US when we spiral totally out of control since we can't actually do anything to ever prevent gun violence we will eventually break down completely.

7

Lamacorn t1_ir7w2me wrote

2A is super unclear… yes I know the SC has rulings on it, but it doesn’t say that everyone can have automatic rifles or shit like that.

> A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

−18

Keilanm t1_ir8p6yq wrote

You should probably do some research before you make a moronic statement like that. You should also consider that at the time private citizens could own artillery.

1

Spirit117 t1_ir7wswm wrote

Automatic weapons are already extremely heavily regulated under the 1934 NFA act and are hardly something just anyone can get.

At least try to do some basic research before you spout off about what should and should not be allowed.

Edit- anyone down voting me should get off reddit and go read the NFA instead.

−21

IAlreadyFappedToIt t1_ir7ziu1 wrote

Their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is not false simply because their example is already rendered moot by law. In fact, the fact that the 1934 NFA act exists actually demonstrates their point for them perfectly that the 2nd Amendment does not exclude the possibility of restrictions. So congrats. You don't even know what you're getting defensive about, you just know that any talk of gun control gets your little hackles raised and you just need to bite something.

4

Spirit117 t1_ir81zqi wrote

The Supreme Court has already ruled that citizens have a right to own semi automatic weapons including handguns (which cause far more deaths annually than rifles do in the USA) - so the NFA clearly cannot be expanded to include semiautomatic weapons without stepping on this ruling.

No ruling exists that explicitly protects automatic or other "exotic" weapons, which is why the NFA hasn't been thrown out yet.

When people talk about banning automatics, there's really no point as the NFA already exists, and it just shows they are uneducated in a field they want changes made in

. When they talk about banning semi automatics, which is really what they mean when they say they support more gun control, then you have Supreme Court cases that says that is an infringement of the 2nd Amendment.

4

LankyJ t1_iralum0 wrote

We all found out this year that what the Supreme Court has already ruled on is not set in stone.

1

Spirit117 t1_iraumpr wrote

It's set in stone until another Supreme court ruling overturns it.

There is absolutely zero chance the current court overturns heller vs DC.

1

pokeybill t1_ir84jy6 wrote

If we can restrict fully auto, we can restrict semi auto or anything else via a law similar to the NFA, period.

The trick is finding a congress willing to step up and pass a similar law. Until then, states will continue to struggle with the gray area left open by the 2a.

−7

Spirit117 t1_ir84qgr wrote

No you can't, because DC already tried and the Supreme Court threw it in the garbage where it belonged in heller vs DC.

That's why congress hasn't tried, because it would be useless political pandering and would be thrown out in the first court case against it. Congress doesn't even care enough about useful political pandering in most cases, so they won't even waste their time here.

The only way to get rid of heller vs DC is to get rid of the 2nd amendment itself which cannot be done by congress.

Even places like California haven't tried a complete ban on anything semi automatic because they know it will not stand, so they've opted for things like magazine and " assault feature" bans.

0

OptimisticBS t1_ir86p4j wrote

We have recently seen that previous Supreme Court rulings don't mean jack shit if the current court wants to throw it out. A different Court makeup could make Heller as valid as Roe.

4

pokeybill t1_ir86ghv wrote

I struggle to understand how a Supreme Court decision supercedes an act of congress - the Supreme Court was literally created by an act of congress and can be undone by one as well. The heller decision only stands until an act of congress counters it, which is entirely possible in the future.

Its not political pandering to enact Sane and rational gun control.

−5

Spirit117 t1_ir88mmk wrote

If the Supreme Court declares a law unconstitional, then it's unconstitutional and is thrown out, even if it was a law from congress. Maybe you need to study basic American civics?

It's a major check on the power of the legislative branch, congress cannot just pass whatever the hell they want if it's blatantly unconstitutional else it will be thrown out

If an act of congress goes against heller, someone will sue to block it. It will either be thrown out in a lower court, or it will be appealed. It may end up being appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if they choose to hear it. The court will then either throw it out, again, and cite their interpretation of the laws and previous rulings like heller, or they will overturn it, like roe v wade.

It is political pandering to propose laws that your party knows has zero chance of passing, and then even if it does pass, will be in direct violation of a previous ruling that was already tossed out for being unconstitutional.

3

pokeybill t1_ir88utp wrote

How on earth does the NFA stand? The reasoning in Heller would easily extend to it if any inkling of what you are asserting is true.

Perhaps you misunderstand what an Act is versus a statutory law? Heller was a statutory decision. Acts of congress duly ratified and constitutional amendments are significantly different than statutory law.

−1

Spirit117 t1_ir893j1 wrote

No it doesn't. Heller reaffirmed the right to semi automatics, handguns, and certain long guns and shotguns.

The NFA doesn't apply to literally any of these. It applies to full automatic weapons, destructive devices (grenade launchers, tank guns, etc), short barreled rifles and shotguns, and suppressors.

Heller affirmed none of those, and that's how the NFA has been allowed to stand. For the record, I wish that law would be done away as well, short barreled rifles and suppressors shouldn't be a part of that.

2

pokeybill t1_ir89hvu wrote

You are citing statue law mixed with acts of congress again. Heller didn't overturn an act, and a Supreme Court decision is not a law - many Supreme Court decisions are overturned when later laws or acts are passed.

2

Spirit117 t1_ir89pq0 wrote

So what's your point then? You believe if congresses passes an act that outlaws all semi autos, that someone isn't going to sue and the Supreme Court isn't going to toss it in the garbage? They'll probanly even cite heller as a precident for declaring it unconstitutional.

2

pokeybill t1_ir8b0bg wrote

The Heller decision was a re-writing by the court of all previous interpretations of whether the second amendment conferred a personal right.

A similar decision could completely undo it, because again, its not a codified law - just a decision throwing out a DC statute.

Until an Act of congress defines things more narrowly,we would expect to see statutory laws unduly restricting access for home defense thrown out.

An act of congress could entirely change that, just like the Heller decision threw out all existing precedent.

So yes, a law could be passed and brought before the court which leads to yet another reinterpretation of the 2a and disregard for precedent, including Heller.

A friendly reminder there were dozens of court rulings on the 2a before Heller with far different results, and there will continue to be due to the antiquated and vague wording of the amendment.

1

Lamacorn t1_ir7x192 wrote

But you can still get them, so I don’t really know what your point is.

−1

Spirit117 t1_ir7z0x7 wrote

If you count a 200 dollar tax stamp to the ATF, a fingerprint check, 6 months of your gun waiting in ATF jail before you can take possession of it, plus the cost of the gun itself, as something that "just anyone" can get. You also need to request prior written approval from the ATF to take them out of state lines from the state they were registered in.

There's no national gun registry, but there is one for NFA items, the ATF knows exactly who owns what and where it is supposed to be - violating the NFA is a 10 year prison sentence if you're lucky. If you're unlucky they'll no knock you and shoot your dog in the process. If you're really, really unlucky, it was actually your neighbor they were after and they no knocked the wrong house.

Sure you can get them but it's like..... Who's got time to jump through all those hoops?

Also, most automatic weapons had to have been manufactured before 1986 to be eligible for private ownership - which creates a limited supply which drives up price. Your basic bitch milspec AR15 costs 500 bucks from your nearest gun shop, a fully automatic eligible for transfer pre 86 ban M16 probably will cost you 15 grand.

But sure, just anyone can get these.

−3

Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir7znu3 wrote

But why does anyone need one

−6

Spirit117 t1_ir80y6x wrote

That question is irrelevant. The fact that the NFA itself hasn't been overturned or amended says the entire govt for the last 90 years agrees that "not just anyone can have these, if you want one of these, you gotta jump through extra hoops".

I can't find a single example of a mass shooting being committed with a properly licensed NFA weapon in the USA..... because there's no reason to use one.

The closest you can get is the Vegas shooting where the dude used bump stocks, which at the time were legal to own for anyone, and have since been reclassified as machine guns and now fall under the jurisdiction of the NFA.

5

Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir81ug6 wrote

In that case, I guess we need to heavily restrict handguns, since they're the most commonly used gun for homicides in the US.

−7

Spirit117 t1_ir825yt wrote

Heller Vs DC already settled that. It says you can go pound sand :)

6

Mr_Bad_Example20 t1_ir82tdm wrote

I'm aware of heller v dc. I was merely using your "logic" that if automatic weapons aren't needed to commit mass shootings then maybe the weapons that are readily available to commit them need to be (well) regulated more. Also, I own guns.

−2