Hello, i would like to thank you for clicking on this, I am a proud republican and I love fire arms, I hope that all other republicans can help with this petition. https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/repeal-hughes-amendment-ban-automatic-weapons/hkdDLxRd And please I love debates so feel free to start one
I agree the petition is silly. First, the grammar and mispellings are atrocious. Second, the argument is silly. However, I do agree that the Hughes Amendment should go. There is no good reason that modern made full auto weapons shouldn't be allowed to be sold to civilians under the current restrictions--the background check, local police permission, tax. etc. Legal full auto weapons have only been involved in a handful of crimes since 1934. Half of those crimes were done by police officers with their duty full autos.
As you would guess, I have to disagree. If we were to tap into the Framer's intent on this issue, I would venture to guess that they would not approve of this expansion. Even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with settled law on this that we don't have a right to ANY weapon. Scalia said in his majority opinion in Heller: "Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. .......... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
We have allowed full auto weapons to be legally owned since 1934. To own one, you have to jump through a number of hoops: The tax is $250, IIRC. The thing is, only a handful (actually 2) of legal full auto firearms have been used in crimes since 1934. One of those cases was a police officer who was using his department issue submachine gun to rob drug dealers. Due to this, there is really no reason to restrict their numbers, IMHO. The Hughes amendment limited the supply of full auto weapons to those that were registered in 1986. This has caused the prices of full auto weapons to skyrocket. It's good for the current owners, not so good for new owners. It's a silly law that does nothing practical. All it does is interfere with the actions of law-abiding people. Laws that do that are unnecessary, and should be eliminated. Eliminating the Hughes amendment will not eliminate restrictions on full auto weapons. All it will do is allow a very limited group of people to buy newer full auto weapons.
Yes, I understand all that. Your argument that I responded to, however seemed to imply that there was some sort of Constitutional right involved that does not actually exist for these weapons. If I misread you there, then I apologize. As to your argument that these weapons should be more available to citizens because their current restrictions have been quite effective, ...I must say I find this a puzzling argument to make.
My point is that the restrictions are effective. Why not increase the supply of weapons to this same restricted population? The decrease of weapon supply didn't decrease their rate of crime. Why not choose the choice with more personal liberty? Or in other words, if a law isn't useful, why have it?
So the "Framer's intent" was that free citizens should not be armed with current, latest technology in small arms? Please provide a sliver of evidence to support your claim. What was the best technology availible to the masses in the late 18th century in small arms? Was it not the flintlock rifle and handgun? The best common, affordable technology today would be any of the select fire assault rifles in service in all countries around the world. The best evidence of the "Framer's intent" on what arms the public were supposed to have is the "Militia Act of 1792." Do you think if any of them were to stand here today, they would want the public to still be armed with single shot "hunting" type weapons?
That's my point. If the current restrictions are effective, then why change them? If you increase the supply of these weapons, then you will also increase the supply in the secondary market, ie the illegal market. You can't have it both ways now, friend. You seem to be trying to play both sides of this argument.
Apparently you missed this: If we were to tap into the Framer's intent on this issue, I would venture to guess that they would not approve of this expansion. Even our conservative Supreme Court agrees with settled law on this that we don't have a right to ANY weapon. Scalia said in his majority opinion in Heller: "Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those in common use at the time. .......... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. "
This historic tradition of "dangerous and unusal weapons, per my limited investigation, refers to such 18th century items like the "infernal device" something akin to "IED's". Miller got it wrong, just like the other progressives that could care less what the thoughts or intentions of the Founders were. "Even the better minds of Supreme Courts like Scalia in the last 100 years inject their own make-believe reasoning without taking the exact wording and intent of the law into account when it was originated. Because they exsist in the modern world, somehow their thinking is superior to that of the Founding Fathers' as is the common wisdom of today. You seem to be in the same boat. BTW, what kinds of personal firearms should legal citizens (the militia) be allowed to own and keep in their own homes? Are semi auto versions of the M-16, M-4 allowable?
Hasn't happened. People who go through the trouble of getting an NFA weapon are the type of people with walk-in gun safes. Also, from what I've read (can't find stats on it), it seems that most stolen full auto weapons are stolen from the military and police, not citizens. I thought that was just a reiteration of my first point.
Way to make broad aspersions, friend. I suppose it's easier to make up an evil position about your opposition so you can demonize them, than it is to construct a valid and reasoned position. Actually, if you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that Scalia is a strict Originalist and NOT what you have charges above.
You have unwittingly made my argument for me. The current restrictions have created a typically safe consumer who takes precautions to safely store their weapons. Now, oddly you want to change this effective structure. Nope. You first stated: "My point is that the restrictions are effective". Then you contradicted yourself saying: "The decrease of weapon supply didn't decrease their rate of crime. ... if a law isn't useful, why have it?" Hardly a "reiteration".
