Court rules in favor of Second Amendment gun right

[John Edward Mercier]

Okay, this doesn't make sense:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous,
that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret
constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

VS.

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
"in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons." See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O'Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

WTF?

Common use at the time... meaning currently. Only black powder weapons would have been common in the 18th century.

[John Edward Mercier]

They don't seem any more mystical than believing that everyone that is self-governed will act in an orderly manner...

I don't believe in some sort of utopia just by ending authoritarian government. I just think using violence to prevent violence is bass-ackwards. It's not that we won't have problems without an authoritarian government. It's that a stupid solution makes things worse than a smarter solution.

Make it more simple.
Your sitting on a bank fishing, a bear is on the opposite bank also fishing. Your aware of each other, but not violent toward one another. Tomorrow the same thing happens... but this time the bear comes and fishes on your side.
The next day the bear returns to the other side of the river to fish.
Is this possible? Of course. But you're also aware of another plausible outcome.

Some are thinking this second outcome would not happen often amongst humans because of human's moral perception... but there is no common moral perception, a majority one, but not a common one. Its this majority one that becomes 'law'...

Think of simple things... why do we drive on the right, instead of the left? Was it the decision of a few people elected through majority perception, or majority perception itself...

[Dylboz]

I think that there is substantial grounds, starting with the "common use... for lawful purposes" part of the ruling, to challenge the 1934 Firearms act that banned full autos for civilian purposes. Frankly, there are more full-auto so-called "black rifles" in common, lawful use by the cops than there are almost any other particular weapon in circulation, and I would say that their use is lawful, given their possession by the officers of the state. The understanding of the militia as the whole body of able persons in the state who are required to supply their own weapons means they should be able to obtain whatever weapons are commonly employed to those defensive purposes at the time, and right now that means an AK-47 or an M4 carbine. If Iraqis can have a full auto AK, than why can't I?

I am troubled by this "unusual and dangerous" thing. The Miller decision was wrong in that sawed off shotguns were actually quite common in use during the first World War as a device to clear trenches. Drop in, pop off a shell, wheel about and pop off the next. Then you buddies come over the top safely. The wide are of effectiveness combined with the shortened barrel's maneuverability were ideal to the purpose, and in fact they were "in common use at the time." Hell, in Chicago in the 30's, the Thompson was in common use. Are we talking common use by civilians or police? And what to make of the fact that it is regulation that determines what is available on the market, so that a weapon that would be popular and common were it legal to obtain is actually unavailable for that purpose? I think that if the cops use these weapons against criminals, and the 2nd here defines an individual right to a weapon in the home for self-defense, then we should get whatever they get, right?

Anyway, the whole "pass on the right" thing came from Roman roads. It was merely custom, one way or the other, until the Roman conquered places and standardized them by decree. The English, once a Roman dominion adopted the left side or sheer perversity, and they spread it around to their colonies. The Japanese adopted it to be more like the British. I think that at least for the design and handling of cars, that left drive is wrong. I have driven both and unless you're left handed, it is difficult to manage the dash controls and shifter.

[dalebert]

Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.

[dalebert]

Some are thinking this second outcome would not happen often amongst humans because of human's moral perception... but there is no common moral perception, a majority one, but not a common one. Its this majority one that becomes 'law'...

You can acknowledge that people do bad things, like form majorities to get what they want, without saying that it's ok. I don't think rape is more evil than gang rape. I think gang rape is worse. I can acknowledge that it happens without supporting it. We can and should attack the notion of forming laws based on majority opinion because it's irrational. Majorities have fueled all the worst abuses throughout history- wars, the holocaust, racism, etc. At some point, if we want to evolve into a more civilized people, we need to learn this and abandon the notion that consensus leads to more civilized behavior. Collectivism is evil. It leads individuals to try to form a sort of group will that doesn't really exist. There are only individuals pursuing self interest and when you let them vote for some absurd right to use violence, they vote in their self interest; not for what's right, and we've perpetuated this ridiculous notion that it's ok, that what the majority has agreed upon is what's right. If it's not against the law, it's ok. If it is against the law, it's wrong. The whole process absolves everyone involved of any sense of responsibility for their actions. Politicians are just carrying out the will of the voters. Soldiers are just following orders. Voters don't consider themselves responsible for the actions of the politicians they voted for because they were just voting for the lesser evil. The whole system is built on nonsense that's been proven wrong by history time and time again. It leads to abuse and misery and more violence. That's the mysticism of which I speak. We understandably desire an objective morality but it doesn't exist. In using a fallacy to try to create some objective sense of morality, we've created a solution that's worse than the problems we were trying to address.

Look. The really hard problems are not going to have any one simple solution. Millions of people are praying for sick people, a substantial majority, and they're wasting their time. Monopoly government is just as silly. The hard truth we ultimately have to deal with is that we have to find real world solutions. I'm not saying that sick people will suddenly be healed if we abandon prayer. I'm just saying that we need to abandon the nonsense that we've been indoctrinated to believe against all logic and start the hard work necessary to explore viable solutions.

[Pat McCotter]

Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.

I'd love to see the transition from left-lane to right-lane driving roads!

[Giggan]

Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.

I'd love to see the transition from left-lane to right-lane driving roads!

I wonder how serious the debate actually got over which side to drive on, does it matter?

I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.

[Pat McCotter]

Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.

I'd love to see the transition from left-lane to right-lane driving roads!

I wonder how serious the debate actually got over which side to drive on, does it matter?

I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.

Yes it would. Can you imagine every appliance maker with their own proprietary electrical plug?

[dalebert]

I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.

Of course. That's what tends to happen when the gooberment doesn't interfere. Beta died off pretty quickly, right? Cascading Style Sheets have developed a standard across the industry. It doesn't always happen, but to the extent that it really needs to, it tends to. The point is we don't need an aggressive and monopolistic gooberment to develop such useful standards.

[KBCraig]

Back to the ruling, there's a new t-shirt out:



Ordering info:
http://www.texasshooting.com/TexasCHL_Forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=16969

[dalebert]

Something tells me Kate's gonna be wearing one of those in no time.

[John Edward Mercier]

Also, which side of the rode people drive on should ultimately be decided by who owns it and will likely follow community standards anyway. The penalties for traffic violations would also be part of the contract for using roads. There will be substantial market incentives to keep them reasonable and sensible as long as we end the monopoly on roads.

There is no monopoly on roads (highways) in NH... if there were only one entity would have ownership... not the case.
Some roads are even under individual control. In fact, in several of the smaller municipalities every year an article is entered into the town meetings for the town to acquire roads that the individual wishes to 'gift' to them. Until recently with the high cost of roads, the towns use to just accept them willy-nilly... as this provided more access.
Even recently read where the NH DOT (State) was more than willing to cede ownership of a section to a local town... the town balked.
 

[John Edward Mercier]

I imagine the market would suggest keeping everything standardized outweighs the benefits of a random change in sides of roads.

Of course. That's what tends to happen when the gooberment doesn't interfere. Beta died off pretty quickly, right? Cascading Style Sheets have developed a standard across the industry. It doesn't always happen, but to the extent that it really needs to, it tends to. The point is we don't need an aggressive and monopolistic gooberment to develop such useful standards.

The government doesn't develop any standards.
For example, this year the elected officials could determine that we all drive on the left-side of the road... if society deems it unimportant a factor, we continue to drive on the left-side of the road... if not we elect new officials and possibly go back to driving on the right.

The argument of standards does not hold factual in all cases. Most of the world is on a metric system... by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s. But any signs of such in your area... because around here nothing changed.

The free market always determines the standards... just not moment to moment.
It takes a long term to turn the herd...

[K. Darien Freeheart]

by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s.

That must be why my Chevy's oil drain bolt is in milimeters and my Honda's is in inches.

[Raineyrocks]

by congressional decree, the US has been on metric since the 90s.

That must be why my Chevy's oil drain bolt is in milimeters and my Honda's is in inches.

What kind of Chevy do you have?