28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

If you had actually read the reasons for the second amendment you would know that self defense and hunting were only part of the reason. To prevent a tyrannical government was also discussed as a primary reason for the right to bear arms. In addition, FIREARMS was not mentioned in the 2nd amendment, but in the view of the framers of the constitution the purpose to prevent that tyrannical government would basically necessitate ARMS of a similar nature as the small standing army.

We are all aware that the 1934 legislation did limit for common distribution full automatic, sawed off weapons, and certain explosives; so you are bringing nothing new to the table.

Further, your suggestion that no one has the right to kill in self defense is hoakum. I have yet to read a single phrase that backs up your contentions about ARMS.

 

http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/founders/others/tenche-coxe-the-pennsylvania-gazette-feb-20-1788

The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

We zealously defend these rights on the premise that governmental abuse of power is a greater evil than that posed by individual hatemongers or criminals.

IV. THE POLITICS OF THE FOUNDING FATHERS
The English republican views on the relationship between arms and democracy profoundly influenced the views of the founding fathers.

Both the Federalists, those promoting a strong central government, and the Anti-federalists, those believing that liberties including the right of self-rule would be protected best by preservation of local autonomy, agreed that arms and liberty were inextricably linked.

The Federalists, those supporting the Constitution as drafted, did not dispute the premise that
governmental tyranny was the primary evil that people had to guard against.

Nor did the Federalists dispute the nexus between arms and freedom. In one of the first Federalist pamphlets, Noah Webster argued that the proposed Constitution provided adequate guarantees to check the dangers of any standing army.

His reasoning acknowledged checks and balances, but did not rely on the same. Rather, Webster argued: Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every Kingdom of Europe. The Supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.

 

Prohibition doesn't work, and would never see the light of day.

 

It would NEVER be an opposing force to the US military? How about the Civil War?

I mean, if 10+ states broke off, I'm willing to be most of their national guard would remain loyal to the states

 

Having served for 27 years in the military I became aware that probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the standing army would join against the tyranny.

 

Not true at all.

 

That is true because the Supreme Court also recognizes the use of firearms for the purposes of competition, hunting, and collecting but only recognized firearms designed for the purpose of hunting, competition, and/or that have a recognizable historical collector value are covered by the more expansive Supreme Court decisions. We can also noted that some of the "collector firearms" are highly regulated under the law where the person must be licensed and the firearm registered.

This isn't supported based exclusive on Heller that was a limited Supreme Court decision but it is supported by the laws, in many cases, have previously passed Supreme Court scrutiny in the past. For example we have the National Firearms Act (NFA) that originally allowed the ownership of fully automatic firearms as long as the individual was licensed and the firearm registered but since then several states have imposed laws that strictly prohibit the ownership of fully automatic firearms. Additionally the NFA was amended (if I recall correctly) to prohibit the ownership of fully automatic firearms produced after 1986 (with only very rare exceptions). So a person might currently own a Ma-Deuce 50 caliber machine gun in some states based upon the NFA but it must be registered and the person licensed but the machine gun had to be manufactured before 1986. No one, to my knowledge, can purchase a band new 50 caliber machine gun because it's prohibited by the laws (that are Constitutional).

We already prohibit, highly regulate and/or restrict many kinds of firearms and with over 300 million existing firearms that cannot be banned a prohibition against the future commercial manufacture, transport, and/or sale of firearms does not prevent access to the ownership or possession firearms.

 

Both of these opinions really hinge upon whether the soldier or officer serving in the military will live by the oath they swore when they became a member of the US military.

http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

So long as our government is working within the framework and authority of the US Constitution every enlisted soldier and officer is compelled by their oath of service to support it. The only constraint is that, based upon their oath of service, no officer or enlisted personnel would carry out an unlawful order because the Constitution and UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) prohibits them from doing so.

The Civil War is a good example because those that were serving in the US military that later served for the Confederacy (e.g. General Robert E Lee) violated their oath of service and, like all of those that served in the Confederate military and/or supported it, they were traitors to the United States under the Constitution. It was only by several presidential pardons following the Civil War for those that served the Confederacy weren't prosecuted for treason against the United States under the provisions of the US Constitution and our statutory laws.

Would there be some that would violate their oath of service and become traitors to the United States? I believe there are those that would become traitors but hopefully they're a very small minority of those serving in the US military and they would also face all of us that are veterans of the US military that still hold a belief in the oath we've taken previously when we served.

 

In point of fact I agree with this which is why I leaned against supporting the proposed Amendment. At the same time regulation does work so long as it's not to the point that it creates a black market in that which is regulated. I lean far more towards more restrictive regulations related to firearms than I do towards prohibiting the future commercial manufacture, transport, or sales of firearms.

Just to throw out a wild thought for discussion, what if the laws limited personal ownership of firearms to not more than one pistol, rifle, and shotgun (except for collectors) per adult? Take your pick but you can only own one of each. Some people have a literal arsenal of firearms and no one in American needs to own an arsenal because they can only use one at a time anyway.

Not saying I support it but just willing to discuss it.

 

So in the end you're saying it would never happen because, despite history being replete with examples of it happening, you *hope * that those serving would never bear arms against the federal government under any circumstances?

So really your opinion - that it would "never" happen - entirely hinges on such an assumption.

Also, as far as them being traitors - they weren't. Their states seceded. I mean sheesh, the federal government deliberately chose not to charge Jefferson Davis with treason because they were afraid he'd prove that secession was legal in court. And everyone knew that it was.

But we're very quickly moving beyond the topic. If you'd like to discuss this elsewhere I'm open to it.

 

A "right to kill" is the "right to commit murder" and no one can commit murder when defending themselves because murder is the premeditated act of taking another person's life.

The dictionary definition for Deadly Force states:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Deadly+Force

Deadly force, under certain statutory condition, is allowable but notice the definition uses the phrase "likely to cause" and not "will cause" serious bodily injury or death. There are certain weapons, such as poison darts, that "will" always cause death and they cannot be used based upon the definition of "deadly force" under the law. The use of a poison dart that will always result in death is a premeditated act of murder and is no longer and act of self defense where the actions of the person are "likely to cause" serious injury or death.

Learn the law because no one has a right to commit the premeditated act of killing another person. They might die if you shoot them but you can't just keep shooting them until they die. If your first shot renders them incapacitated you can't stand over them and fire more rounds into their body until they're dead because that's murder.

Once again if we could defend ourselves without weapons that are "likely to cause" serious injury or death then there's no compelling argument for allowing the use of deadly force at all because it's unnecessary.

 

Cite, with text to that effect.

This has never been upheld by the SCotUS.

As you know, your proposal contains a plenary provision against the sale of any firearm; people who do not have a firearm can only obtain one through extraordinary circumstances. Denial of access.

 

Really? Allowing for the possibility that you're being tongue-in-cheek here, I'll play along.

How many gun manufacturers have broken the law? Murdered, raped, embezzled, terrorized, etc. etc. etc.? How many have failed to pay their taxes or obey traffic laws or refused to adhere to zoning laws or other good neighbor policies? How many beat their wives, abused or neglected their children, kicked puppies, or burned down churches?

What makes them bad? Because they manufacture a legal product that is of practical use for millions of people? Because a tiny, tiny percentage of people use that product for illegal purposes without the knowledge or consent of the manufacturers?

You might as well say cap the number of automobiles and trucks manufactured as the manufacturers of polluting machinery are the real bad guys. Or the manufacturers of the machines that kill millions of people are the real bad guys.

 

And you still overlook a principal purpose of the 2nd amendment, TO PREVENT A TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENT. That would require that the people not only have a right to keep and bear arms, it would require that the people be as well armed as the standing army with some specific exceptions. (and I suspect that would fly out the window the moment a tyrannical government over reaches its constitutional authority.

 

The oath is to protect and defend THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, not some tyrannical government acting counter to the values of the US.

Thank you! of course we took oaths to preserve our country to include ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC. You make it easy for me when you post supporting links to my comments.

Again you support my comment since a tyrannical government DOES NOT WORK WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK AND AUTHORITY OF THE CONSTITUTION.

No soldier fighting a tyrannical government would be in violation of his oath.

 

The "transfer of ownership" is not prohibited and can be accomplished in numerous ways other than by a "sale" such as a gift, inheritance, barter, or trade none of which involve the "sale" of the item. I don't believe many would consider gifts, inheritance, barter or trade to be an extraordinary means of 'transfer of ownership" because they're all very common in practice.

Anecdotally I have a Model 70 30-06 Winchester right now that I'd gladly trade for a fishing boat because I'm no longer a hunter and will never use the rifle again but I do want to do some fishing.

 

This is, at best, laughable; compared to the number of guns SOLD, the number of non-sale transfers is negligible; as firearms cannot be easily replaced under your terms, the likelihood of anyone giving one away diminishes greatly.
Thus, denial of access.

 

The mere fact that an intruder enters my home at night uninvited by on of the adults will be a death sentence for the intruder and no sane court would find me guilty of anything.(might even get a medal) I have the right to shoot and kill anyone who enters my home illegally, period. No other limits are limiting.

 

IE illegal infringement of the people keeping and bearing arms at least as deadly as a tyrannical governments standing army.

 

Pssst! The model 70 is a REMINGTON bolt action.

 

If that "intruder" happens to be a small five year old child then arguably you used "excessive force" and if I happened to be on the jury I'd vote to convict you of murder.

Additionally if the facts come out that you shot the intruder and they were incapacitated laying on the floor, no longer representing any potential threat, and then you stood over them and pumped them full of bullets, as a member of a jury I'd also vote to convict you of murder.

If the intruder was fleeing from you and you shot them in the back, as a member of a jury, I'd also vote to convict you of murder because a person fleeing from you doesn't represent a threat of aggression against you.

You don't have a right to murder anyone under any circumstances and, if the facts indicate, you used excessive force and killed someone when they didn't represent a creditable threat like a small child, or someone laying incapacitated on the floor, or someone that's fleeing from you, then most jury members would vote to convict you of murder.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winchester_Model_70

The Winchester Model 70 30-06 I own was manufactured by the Winchester Repeating Arms Company in 1952 (based upon the serial number). It's a superb hunting rifle with a scope that will easily bring down a deer at up to 300 yards. If you want it then I want a fishing boat in exchange. I'm not interested in selling it but I will trade it for a fishing boat.

The comparable Remington rifle to the Winchester Model 70 is the Remington Model 700 and both are exceptionally fine rifles.

http://www.fieldandstream.com/answe...ws/remington-model-700-vs-winchester-model-70

If you want to discuss firearms I'd suggest learning a little more about them.

Of note the Model 70 30-06 was often used by the military as a sniper rifle and could be a logical choice if the government decided to designate a specific firearm for the "citizen militias" in the United States in compliance with the 2nd Amendment and all other firearms could be excluded for that purpose.

 

You shoot someone that broke into your home and there is little chance you will ever end up in court to begin with.

 

Perhaps I should expand on this. We've referred to Heller v Washington DC Supreme Court decision that addressed the individual right of the person to have firearms in the home but haven't addressed the provisions in the 2nd Amendment related to a "well regulated militia" that's also addressed.

Our government has never designated a specific firearm for use by the militia but it did, during the era of black powder muskets, designate the caliber required for logistical support reasons. The NRA has claimed that any modern firearm commonly used by the military is covered while the Supreme Court has ruled that some maybe excluded.

If, based upon logistical support reasons, the federal government decided that a specific firearm was to be used by the "people" if they were called into service based upon the provisions in Article I Section 8 for "calling forth the militia" while also excluding all other firearms, then I don't see the Supreme Court striking down that law. The logic of limiting firearms for the (civilian) militia based upon logistical support is a compelling argument.

In the earlier post both the Model 70 Winchester and the Model 700 Remington were mentioned but if individuals show up with both while the government is only supplying parts for one, such as the Model 70, if the Model 700 breaks then it becomes a club and not a firearm. It is illogical for the "militia" to show up with all different types and models of firearms so specifying a single firearm for that purpose by the people is logical under the provisions of the Constitution.

I'm sure that few of the "gun control nuts" in the Congress have even thought of this means of limiting types of firearms that the NRA believes people have a right to own based upon "military type" firearms such as the AR-15.

 

It depends upon what the police investigation of the shooting determines. As noted if there's any indication that a creditable "threat" didn't actually exist then the person is very likely to face prosecution. For example a bullet hole in the back indicates that the intruder was attempting to flee and didn't represent a creditable threat to the homeowner and they would stand a high probability of prosecution. If you kill a small child that doesn't represent a creditable threat then the probability of prosecution is very high. If someone witnesses you shooting someone laying on the floor incapacitated the probability of prosecution is very high.

It depends upon the individual circumstances and forensic evidence as determined by the police investigation as to whether the person will be prosecuted or not.