Heller and Machine Guns
I was reading the transcript and read the machine gun stuff. Twice. I think Gura was talking about crew served weapons. In that context, his comments on lineal descendants make sense. Thoughts?
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
March 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
By crew-served, is that a normal crew standard of review, or Rambo standard of review?
Didn’t he operate one or more crew served guns by himself?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
I don’t know. He talks of arms commonly held by the populace, and since machine guns are not common, it is not an arm protected by the Second Amendment as it applies to individuals. I couldn’t disagree more.
It’s just like his argument against Congress redefining people out of the Second Amendment… what good is it then? –What good is the Second Amendment if certain arms can be regulated out of commonplace?
March 18th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
match lock -> wheel lock -> flint lock -> percussion cap -> cartridge -> revolver -> Gatling Gun -> crew served automatics
There’s your lineal descent.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
There are parts of D.C. where I’d want a crew-served…
March 18th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
There are parts of D.C. where I’d want a crew-served…
I think you have to be a New Jersey governor to do that…
March 18th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
I don’t really think it matter, since I doubt the justices are going to make the distinction.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
to me, a machine gun is a direct descendant of grapeshot
March 18th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
counter, i mean more in terms of their military use not how technologically they evolved.
March 18th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Machine gun is a modern refinement of a slow move towards rapid fire weapons that began in the 15th century with the “ribauldequin” an early ancestor of the volley gun/mitrailleuse. The gap between these weapons (that used one barrel per shot) and modern weapons serving the same purpose was bridged by the early 1700s Puckle gun that was intended to be a rapid firing anti-personnel weapon.
The founders were aware of all of these weapons and would have immediately recognized a crew served browning machine gun as an “arm.” Similarly, the modern assault rifle would be seen as a direct lineal descendant of both the kentucky rifle and the shotgun (semi auto for long range, burst or auto for close range like the shotgun).
March 18th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Didn’t the colonial militias have cannon and mortars? Those were crew-served. Haven’t read the transcript yet, but I’ve been raising my eyebrow over the “lineal descent” phrase ever since I read it.
BTW, Sebastian linked to NRA’s Heller page, where there’s a link to the transcript [pdf]
March 18th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Yes, they had cannon and mortars.
Some were privately owned, too.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think that they were just trying to bait him into scaring the shit out of the white people and he didn’t bite.
March 18th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
my understanding is that not only were cannon privately owned, but that ships of war were also privately owned…
March 18th, 2008 at 7:23 pm
OT, but did you catch this quote by DC police chief Cathy Lanier:
It would be like charging $1,000 for a voting license, then arguing that since rich people can vote, it’s OK, since there is not a “complete” ban on voting.
Or passing a law that say only government employees can vote.
Or only people with a 4-year college degree.
Or…well, you get the picture.
I’ll try to get the video of this twit up later.
March 18th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I think lineal decent is NOT a reasonable criterion for determining the legality of a firearm. Is the rifle not a lineal descendant of the spear? I propose that all weapons are lineal descendants of the fist. Weapons are a means to exert deadly force from a distance. I’ll submit a more logical and enduring criterion for determining a weapon’s legality (that I also do not agree with): Is said weapon superior to weapons currently used by the state? Is this not the reason fully-automatic weapons are now illegal for civilians?
March 18th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Sssh. I’ve been bustin’ my ass all day and I’m glued to a repeat on CSPAN right now.
March 18th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Listening to it now it occurs to me that:
-breyer and stephens are trying to get him to say that machine guns are automatically legal under individually right
-gura defuses it as best he can
I agree that it was an attempt to scare white people. I think it failed.
March 18th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I think machine guns ARE covered under an individual right. There was a big deal made during oral between weapons that can be pointed at one person and weapons that are indiscriminate like WMDs.
Clearly machine guns can be pointed at a single person, and, in the form of SMGs and rifle style machine guns (M16), are the direct descendant of the assault weapon of the day, the musket. Crew served machine guns are “crew served” because someone has to carry ammo for the things. They are still operated by one person, and pointed and fired just like any other firearm. The whole crew served thing is a wrong turn. A machine gun is a machine gun.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
I’m going to quote someone from comments at my blog that I think have accurately described Gura’s position in Heller WRT machineguns:
Gura wants an individual rights decision – period. As someone else said in that same comment thread:
Amen.
March 18th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
What is that then Kevin? Life of a thousand band-aids? Each one keeps a little less blood from spilling out and the 2A grows in strength proportionally? It is alive!
March 19th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Like I said in the previous post, just recently submitted, the legal system was used, properly, to elevate blacks from farm implements to whole citizens.
I can see the parallels that Kevin is making here.
March 19th, 2008 at 10:25 am
In case you hadn’t noticed, Ben, the wounds have already been inflicted. What Gura did yesterday was to insert several sutures and staunch the bleeding. After a decision declaring the Second Amendment protects an individual right, then we can start suturing up the rest of the wounds, one at a time.
Like, for instance, the Ninth Circuit’s Hickman v Block.