Mojo_PeiPei

Hi, this is my first post on this board. I got a quick question regarding the 2nd amendment and the ownership of arms. The other day my roommate was saying he knows somebody who got arrested for conspiracy to murder. What he said was that if you own X amount of weapons the FBI is allowed to tap your phones, that was his claim on how his friend got arrested. Doesn't make any sense to me really, I can't accept it. Anybody have any insight?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

ziadel

yeah, I got some insight, thats BS.

__________________
Ron Paul '08
Vote for Freedom
Go ahead and google Dr. Ron Paul. You'll like what you read.

The_Dunedan

Total nonsense.
Certain majorly anti-gun states, like the PRC, have been known to "investigate" people who have "arsenals" of weapons, and then use their example of owning "vast amounts of weaponry" as an excuse to increase their anti-gun laws. However, this is highly illegal.
His friend might have been busted for any number of things, but not for owning "too many guns." Depending on where the friend lived, they might have been unpapered guns, or unregistered NFA-34 items, but amount has nothing to do with it.

MSD

The rumor of that law existing is a load of crap. If the FBI did that, a bunch of people need to be fired.

MrTuffPaws

BS. Pure and simple. If he did actually get busted, it was for something other than owning legal guns.

daswig

This may NOT be BS, depending on what is involved. If the person held a Federal Firearms License, and he was residing at the licensed premesis, it could POSSIBLY be true. When you get an FFL, you effectively lose most of your 4th amendment rights.

hrdwareguy

I do not believe this is correct. Exactly what parts of the 4th amendment do you loose. Also the 4th amendment has nothing to do with wire tapping. It does have to do with search and seizure. Even with an FFL, the ATF has to make an appointment to come do inspections durring business hours.

__________________
Gun Control is hitting what you aim at

Aim for the TFP, Donate Today

shakran

in the first place, the 4th does not say "unless you get a gun permit, in which case none of the above applies."

Nothing you can legally do will lose you your constitutional rights.

Second, you are making a HUGE assumption about the 2nd, and one that about half the population does not agree with - namely, that the 2nd gives you the right to own any guns whatsoever. It does have the little militia clause in there, and many argue that that indicates the intent of the framers is that you be allowed to have a gun while in a well-organized militia.

However, let's assume for this argument that the 2nd's first clause (the militia part) does not apply and that it guarantees you the right to own guns. Note that it only says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." It does not say "the right to bear 3 arms shall not be infringed." In other words, no limit is put on the number of arms you may own, and in fact (again assuming that the 2nd gives you any right to own guns at all) it specifically forbids government from preventing you from owning as many as you want.

DelayedReaction

The DOJ has also recently concluded that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, although the SC has yet to examine the issue.

I doubt your roommate has any clue what he's talking about.

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, you must be having an orgasm.

Mojo_PeiPei

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

whocarz

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I don't see in there anywhere that states that you MUST belong in a militia to own a gun. Nor does it outline what constitues a militia. Since there is no guideline for the organization of a militia, one could easily claim that one man can be a militia.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

shakran

One can easily claim both sides. Con-law is interpreted by using "intent of the framers." So what was their intent here? To let everyone own guns no matter what? Then why'd they include the first sentence?

Or to let only those in a militia own guns? Then why didn't they say so more specifically?

It's an extremely vague clause, and can be interpreted either way.

Frankly I think they were leaning toward people in militias owning guns. Of course, back then, the whole freakin' country was in a militia - we'd just gotten done fighting off the British, and we'd done it by having just about every male pick up guns and fight.


And even though I think the second probably only guarantees those in a militia the right to own guns, I also think that acting on that interpretation and banning guns to the general public would be a rather large mistake, since the people that would use the guns to commit crimes aren't real likely to turn theirs in - we'd end up with only criminals being armed.

The_Dunedan

Legally speaking (Sec 311 USC ) all males between the ages of 17 and 45 are members of the Militia, along with any female who wishes to be so.

That being the case, all males between 17 and 45, and all desiring females, are gauranteed the right to bear military-suitable arms. Since the Militia Act ( Sec 311 USC ) is over 200 years old, the age requirements could be extended quite a bit given our currently longer life-spans. At the time, 45 was in the neighborhood of the average life-expectancy; this was clearly intended to be a lifetime commitment.

shakran

first off that's 10 USC 311 (just saying sec. 311 refers to a shitload of different laws).

Second off if you want to use that to help interpret the 2nd, it destroys the argument that the 2nd guarantees guns to everyone.

The initial clause of 10/311 does say that all able-bodied males (so no handicapped people can have guns) between 17 and 45 (so no middle aged or senior citizens can own guns) can own guns (btw it does not say any desiring females, it says any female thats a member of a national guard).


But section b further defines militias, subdividign them into organized militia and unorganized militia. Organized militia consists of the national guard and the naval militia. Unorganized consists of everyone else.

The 2nd says a well ORGANIZED militia, not an unorganized militia. So really the 2nd can be said to guarantee the national guard and the naval militia the right to bear arms. No one has ever argued that they do not have that right

The_Dunedan

It says "Well Regulated," which at that time meant "Functioning in proper order." Nothing to do with "regulation" in the modern "rules-n-Regs" sense of the word.

shakran

OK, fine. Tell me how the guy hunting deer with an AK-47 is well regulated as applies to a militia.

whocarz

I think you're missing the point. The idea isn't that we have these established militias all over the place, the idea is that in a time of crisis, effective militias can be raised quickly and cost efficently to bolster the ranks. You can't have an effective militia if none of the members know how to shoot, and it can't be cheap if you have to supply everyone with weapons and ammo. Therefore, average Joe Sixpack can buy, own and operate firearms to be prepared for such an emergency.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

shakran

Actually its you who is missing the point. My point is that logical arguments can be made for either side of the 2nd. If someone had started arguing that the 2nd doesn't guarantee the right for individuals to have weapons, I'd have started arguing that it does. The 2nd is written in such a way that either side can interpret it as representing their point of view. It's fairly unique in that regard - no one argues whether the first amendment REALLY gives us the freedom of speech or not. It's pretty plain and clear in the way it's written that it does.

The REAL question is, why did the framers write the 2nd so vaguely? IMHO it's because they didn't REALLY want the average Joe Idiot to be able to get his hands on a gun, but on the other hand they also really didn't want the British to come back and find our population largely unarmed. They were between a rock and a hard place and they wrote the amendment vaguely so that it could be interpreted to suit the situation.

whocarz

I will simply disagree and move on.

__________________
If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel

Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius

Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

MSD

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." George Washington

"The said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..." Samuel Adams

Sounds like they wanted everyone armed. When Adams references "peaceable citizens," he clearly means everyone.

izin

It's perfectly clear what the framers intentions were concerning the 2nd amendment when you read their responses to other people's questions regarding their intentions. Nice post MrSelfDestruct. Just a few good quotes of the many I've read and seen when this subject comes up.

Sbudda

First off, wasn't the Davidian complex in Waco raided initially because of the arsenal that they had? I want to think that Ruby Ridge was also raided for the same thing, but for the life of me I can't recall. So while it may be illegal to arrest someone for having a ton of weapons, it is apparently enough to get a search and seizure warrant. I'm sure they'd love to stick an "intent to distribute" charge on you too.

As far as the 2nd amendment stuff goes, I think it's pretty easy to understand the framers intent. Their knowledge of European history was likely much better than ours. European history has been punctuated over and over by two events... invaders who want to pillage and burn your city, and tyrant rulers who want to pillage and burn your city. In that context it makes a ton of sense to make everyone armed; as they would all have to fight together in order to survive.

I consider the right to bear arms a bit like the right to own a horse. Once upon a time everyone knew how to ride and care for a horse, and it would be foolish to pass a law saying that a person couldn't have one. Now, it would be foolish to not allow a person to own a horse - even though I can guarantee that if I had a horse, it would be good as glue within a week. What, you have to feed the stupid thing?

I think we can all agree that a person who grew up around horses, knows how to train and care for them, should have access to the best horses he can get. Same with guns. It used to be that everyone was at least partly trained on their use. Now, with the exception of families that use them regularly, no one knows anything about them. As a person who was raised in such a family, telling me that I couldn't have one is akin to telling a rancher that he can't have a horse.

So the answer is simple! Have horseback riding classes in all schools, and require that people who purchase a gun pass a test that they know how to hit a target, how to clean a gun, and know the rules of engagement that apply to their locality. Since militias where just people living together; who protected each other and trained together; I think such a common sense solution would fit the spirit of the law quite nicely.

Too bad common sense is neither common, or available in Washington.

The_Dunedan

Waco: Initial raid was because D. Koresh allegedly owed a $200 tax on an NFA weapon. He could easily have been arrested in town, but the BATFEebs wanted publicity. Turns out he didn't owe the tax and didn't own any NFA weapons, so the FedGoons cooked up a "meth lab" story which also fell apart in short order. From there, they came up with the "child sex abuse" angle, which lasted about 10 days, and had finally progressed to "this lunatic thinks he's Jesus." Shortly thereafter, the FedGoons roasted everyone alive.

Ruby Ridge was essentially revenge. Vicki Weaver had offended a local judge in a "Letters to the Editor" column. This judge happened to have friends at ATF, who he persuaded to trick Randy Weaver into sawing down a pair of single-barrel shotguns. The BATFEebs then went to Weaver and tried to blackmail him into spying on a local White Supremacist group for them "Do this for us or go to Pound Me In The Ass Federal Penitentiary" was the gist of it. Weaver refused. ATF and FBI then spent several months surveilling the Weaver farm before laying siege to it and murdering Vicki and Sammy weaver, severely wounding Randy Weaver and Kevin Harris, and slightly wounding Weaver's two eldest daughters.

izin

I have to respectfully disagree with ya here. Putting those kinds of restrictions on a person's rights is a slippery slope. Leaving the government any grounds to abuse, regulate, or manipulate a law abiding citizens right to purchase a firearm is unacceptable. There's examples all across this country of officials and their appointees abusing people's rights to purchase firearms. If you want a hunting license then I agree you owe it to the people you come in contact with while armed that you understand the basics of safety. Same goes for a CCW in my opinion. You don't need a license to buy a car but you sure need to show you're competent and responsible enough to operate one safely if you want to do so in public.

Sbudda

The_Dunedan - Thanks for clearing that up for me.

izin - You make a number of good points there. I can understand your theory of the slippery slope. I think we can all find examples of that is just about any law. But I think we can also agree that Paris Hilton most likely doesn't have the firearm culture to keep from putting a slug in the head of poor Tinkerbell by accident.

It's a tough one. On one hand, you don't really want to license people to own guns because then there is a master list somewhere of the guns you own (at least now they have to go through the distribution channel to get that information). On the other hand, when people with no experience with guns buys one and places it loaded and cocked in their dresser table - it makes responsible owners look bad.

You do have a very good point about CCW and hunting licenses though. When I got my CCW, all I needed was a money order and a background check. This was ok for me (I go to the range regularly), but personally I would almost have preferred to be required to take the NRA safety class and pass a test of the laws of my state. For the life of me, I can't get anyone to firmly answer if I can take my firearm on the subway (permit says maybe...).

Not to mention that I have no idea what I can do to a guy that breaks into my house. I'm sure we've all heard stories of the guy who shoots the intruder who was carrying a knife only to be arrested for excessive force. This type of knowledge needs to be collected and distributed by the government - since they made the blasted rules in the first place.

I think I'm just rambelling now. It's tough to balance the rights and privacy of the responsible with the desire to teach the unresponsible or untrained. Maybe they need a learning CCW permit.

Sbudda

Hey, the guy may not be well regulated to hunt deer, but I think we can all agree he is well regulated for a militia.

Moonduck

The 2nd Amendmant has nothing to do with hunting, target shooting, or any sport use of firearms whatsoever. The 2nd Amendmant has nothing to do with collecting guns, arsenals, explosives, or destructive devices. The 2nd Amendmant is 100% about ensuring that the single greatest protection of liberty, an armed populace, was Constitutionally guaranteed.

Read what the Founders said about gun ownership in the various papers they wrote outside the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The were very pro-gun-ownership, and for entirely political reasons.

As an aside, "well regulated", in the language of the times, can also be simply "well equipped".

daswig

As a former FFL and SOT, and now as a J.D., I'm pretty sure I know what I'm talking about. The ATF does NOT have to make an appointment to do a compliance inspection. They generally try to as a matter of courtesy and convenience for the licensee, but they are not obligated to. For a criminal investigation, they can do pretty much whatever they want, whenever they want. And please remember, that when you get an FFL, you agree as a condition of your license to give up certain rights. In fact, when I got my first FFL, in addition to requiring me to give permission, they required my LANDLORD to give permission for future searches of the property prior to issuing the license.

It's the same deal as a search at a traffic stop....if you give them permission, no warrant is required. Since permission is required for the license to be issued, if you have the license, you've given up most of your rights.

daswig

OK, you've made me laugh. It reminds me of the T-shirt that says "Prevent Rape: Consent!" Want to lose your constitutional protections? It's easy to do. Just give the cop permission to conduct that warrantless search, and you've done just that.