GE Morton wrote: ↑June 6th, 2022, 7:53 pm
Robert66 wrote: ↑June 6th, 2022, 6:17 pm
For example the notion that some weapons may be categorised as 'dangerous and unusual weapons', and that therefore there exists another category of weapons (dangerous yet usual, or commonly used, and therefore somehow publicly acceptable) warrants such examination. Heaven help us when 3D-printed, hand-held Javelin missile launchers become common.
All weapons are dangerous, by definition. If they were not they would not be effective weapons. So only "usual" requires any interpretation. And that is easily settled by observing their prevalence in the community. About half of all rifles and 85% of all handguns sold in the US in the last 20 years are semi-auto. They comprise about 20% of all firearms in the US (most of the rest of which are older weapons). That is pretty "usual."
https://www.ammunitiondepot.com/blog/wh ... automatics
Note I was not quarrelling over 'dangerous'. Much is made in the Court's opinion of the historic, or traditional, view of common or usual weapons, being those that a citizen possessed at home, and could bring when joining the militia. EG:
p.55: '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) [etc.]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and [p.56]
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.
IV
We turn finally to the law at issue here. As we have said, the law totally bans handgun possession in the home. ... As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a
prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.'
So even as this opinion has become outdated (today we worry over AR-15s rather than M-16s; tomorrow - who knows) and the threat posed by such common or usual weapons becomes much greater, we can still make no impact on the solid wall that is the Second Amendment. For what? To uphold a tradition whereby, in theory, a militia might be organised to thwart still-expected tyranny. How realistic is the prospect of such an organised militia? No less powerful a figure than the recent POTUS Trump attempted such organisation, and we got an idiotic rabble, some wearing Viking horns. How realistic is the tyranny to be guarded against? Current POTUS Biden revealed his powerless position in the matter by imploring
others to "do something". Hardly the words of a tyrant.
How united are the United States? Not at all when it comes to guns. Is the situation likely to change? Not while the Anti-Federalist concerns are catered to in interpreting the Constitution, while Federalist concerns go on being ignored.
Just as an aside, there was a time when the nature of, and degree of danger posed by a gun varied considerably:
'George Bemis . . . wore in his belt an old original "Allen" revolver, such as irreverent people called a "pepper-box." Simply drawing the trigger back, cocked and fired the pistol. As the trigger came back, the hammer would begin to rise and the barrel to turn over, and presently down would drop the hammer, and away would speed the ball. To aim along the turning barrel and hit the thing aimed at was a feat which was probably never done with an "Allen" in the world. But George's was a reliable weapon, nevertheless, because, as one of the stage-drivers afterward said, "If she didn't get what she went after, she would fetch something else." And so she did. She went after a deuce of spades nailed against a tree, once, and fetched a mule standing about thirty yards to the left of it. Bemis did not want the mule; but the owner came out with a double-barreled shotgun and persuaded him to buy it, anyhow. It was a cheerful weapon--the "Allen." Sometimes all its six barrels would go off at once, and then there was no safe place in all the region round about, but behind it.'
...
'I was armed to the teeth with a pitiful little Smith & Wesson's seven-shooter, which carried a ball like a homopathic pill, and it took the whole seven to make a dose for an adult. But I thought it was grand. It appeared to me to be a dangerous weapon. It had only one fault--you could not hit anything with it. One of our 'conductors' practiced awhile on a cow with it, and as long as she stood still and behaved herself she was safe; but as soon as she went to moving about, and he got to shooting at other things, she came to grief.'
Mark Twain,
Roughing it, 1872
The Southern communities are just as peaceful and religious as the Northern. The Southerner may be more highly cultured, and anything he does is naturally conspicuous. Carrying a revolver is a fad, just a fad or a fashion; but the revolvers are mightly harmless. Of course there are desperadoes on the frontier, but that is the only part of the world they live in. Their deeds give a false character to their district. I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world.
- "Mark Twain Put to the Question" interview, Adelaide,
South Australian Register, 10/14/1895