4 ms·

I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.

by hotpotamus 4y ago

spoonjim 4y ago
If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.
- barbazoo 4y ago
  We all know, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is with a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
  - kbelder 4y ago
    That does seem to be the case.
    - otikik 4y ago
      He said "a good guy".
      - treeman79 4y ago
        The constitution assumes the government will be run by bad people. Hence all the limits it imposed on government.
        hotpotamus 4y ago
        The founders of the US, among them some authors of that Constitution, would disagree. George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.” Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.” Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.” Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual happiness and societal governance.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  I suppose the real question is how far the current supreme court is willing to go then?
- filoleg 4y ago
  Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about some tangentially related recent events that mentions it (and explains as well)[0]. Owning a personal nuclear weapon might not be technically illegal. However, producing it and transferring it is illegal. Which, seems to be almost functionally equivalent to being illegal to possess. This is just purely my thoughts on how that hypothetical could play out, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't stupid curious about it myself. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/weapons-grade-uranium-offer-probed-by-fbi/44d65d33-5390-433d-b5b9-b44843a9a80e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/w...
  - shantbefringed 4y ago
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    You can't point at a law to contradict a constitutional right, so presumably a "right to bear ICBMs" argument would hinge on the law being an unconstitutional restriction of their 2nd Amendment rights. It would be mildly amusing if the ultimate decision worked out to "you can own nuclear material, but ONLY for the purpose of weaponizing it. No energy allowed!"
  - spoonjim 4y ago
    That's a weird logic. So it would be constitutional to outlaw gunpowder?
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  When have nuclear weapons ever been considered "arms"? Infantry don't carry nuclear weapons.
  - nautilius 4y ago
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_devic...
  - glial 4y ago
    I'm not a lawyer, but development of nuclear weapons is called an "arms race".
dublin 4y ago
Read the Bruen opinion - it's well-written and actually pretty clear that recent (really, meaning the last two centuries) gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Any restrictions have to be ones that would have been commonly in place when the Constitution originated, so generally, no later than 1791. It's likely (and a really good thing for liberty and Constitutional rights in general) that Bruen will invalidate both the heinously unconstitutional 1934 National Firearms Act (which was never allowed to face a court challenge), and also the 1968 Gun Control Act, so yeah, full auto will likely be confirmed to have always been protected by the Constitution once the current slug of cases challenging these laws makes it through the courts. Once the NFA falls, firearms manufacturing of all kinds will be opened up to every citizen. This is already starting a renaissance in the 3D printed guns community. (Current 3D printed guns are still a very poor substitute for their machined counterparts, but they now work well enough now to be the equivalent of really cheap, bad guns, and have the advantage that they do not require registration, which is really just a database for confiscation or harassment.)
- glial 4y ago
  I can accept that Bruen's arguments have a certain internal logic. What I don't understand is how we have decided weigh the "right" of having guns vs the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, the latter is what the government is for, and everything else -- even and especially the bill of rights -- is an implementation decision designed too further those aims. Given that the US 22x more per capita gun deaths than the EU, perhaps we missed the mark. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like gun proliferation is in practice harmful to life.
  - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
    Well, better round up a referendum for a constitutional amendment then.
  - 15155 4y ago
    > Declaration of Independence A document penned before the United States Constitution which has zero legal authority - a letter to King George III.

I wonder if any regulation of fully automatic weapons is constitutional now.

spoonjim 4y ago

If you take the Second Amendment literally as written, even regulation of personal nuclear weapons is unconstitutional.

barbazoo 4y ago
We all know, the only way to stop a bad guy with a nuclear weapon is with a good guy with a nuclear weapon.
- kbelder 4y ago
  That does seem to be the case.
  - otikik 4y ago
    He said "a good guy".
    - treeman79 4y ago
      The constitution assumes the government will be run by bad people. Hence all the limits it imposed on government.
      - hotpotamus 4y ago
        The founders of the US, among them some authors of that Constitution, would disagree. George Washington said: “Virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government,” and “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people.” Benjamin Franklin said: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” James Madison stated: “To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea.” Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people; and … their minds are to be informed by education what is right and what wrong; to be encouraged in habits of virtue and to be deterred from those of vice … These are the inculcations necessary to render the people a sure basis for the structure and order of government.” Samuel Adams said: “Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend of the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue.” Patrick Henry stated that: “A vitiated [impure] state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom.” John Adams stated: “We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry would break the strongest cords of our constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” Virtue ennobles individual character and lifts society as a whole. Virtuous principles eschew prejudice and discrimination, confirming that “all men are created equal.” Virtue encompasses characteristics of goodwill, patience, tolerance, kindness, respect, humility, gratitude, courage, honor, industry, honesty, chastity and fidelity. These precepts serve as the cornerstones for both individual happiness and societal governance.
hotpotamus 4y ago
I suppose the real question is how far the current supreme court is willing to go then?
filoleg 4y ago
Sure, but posessing some of the materials needed for producing such a weapon is indeed illegal due to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Here is an article about some tangentially related recent events that mentions it (and explains as well)[0]. Owning a personal nuclear weapon might not be technically illegal. However, producing it and transferring it is illegal. Which, seems to be almost functionally equivalent to being illegal to possess. This is just purely my thoughts on how that hypothetical could play out, but I would be lying if I said I wasn't stupid curious about it myself. 0. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/weapons-grade-uranium-offer-probed-by-fbi/44d65d33-5390-433d-b5b9-b44843a9a80e/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1978/03/19/w...
- shantbefringed 4y ago
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  You can't point at a law to contradict a constitutional right, so presumably a "right to bear ICBMs" argument would hinge on the law being an unconstitutional restriction of their 2nd Amendment rights. It would be mildly amusing if the ultimate decision worked out to "you can own nuclear material, but ONLY for the purpose of weaponizing it. No energy allowed!"
- spoonjim 4y ago
  That's a weird logic. So it would be constitutional to outlaw gunpowder?
rufus_foreman 4y ago
When have nuclear weapons ever been considered "arms"? Infantry don't carry nuclear weapons.
- nautilius 4y ago
  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_devic...
- glial 4y ago
  I'm not a lawyer, but development of nuclear weapons is called an "arms race".

dublin 4y ago

Read the Bruen opinion - it's well-written and actually pretty clear that recent (really, meaning the last two centuries) gun restrictions are unconstitutional. Any restrictions have to be ones that would have been commonly in place when the Constitution originated, so generally, no later than 1791. It's likely (and a really good thing for liberty and Constitutional rights in general) that Bruen will invalidate both the heinously unconstitutional 1934 National Firearms Act (which was never allowed to face a court challenge), and also the 1968 Gun Control Act, so yeah, full auto will likely be confirmed to have always been protected by the Constitution once the current slug of cases challenging these laws makes it through the courts. Once the NFA falls, firearms manufacturing of all kinds will be opened up to every citizen. This is already starting a renaissance in the 3D printed guns community. (Current 3D printed guns are still a very poor substitute for their machined counterparts, but they now work well enough now to be the equivalent of really cheap, bad guns, and have the advantage that they do not require registration, which is really just a database for confiscation or harassment.)

glial 4y ago
I can accept that Bruen's arguments have a certain internal logic. What I don't understand is how we have decided weigh the "right" of having guns vs the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, the latter is what the government is for, and everything else -- even and especially the bill of rights -- is an implementation decision designed too further those aims. Given that the US 22x more per capita gun deaths than the EU, perhaps we missed the mark. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like gun proliferation is in practice harmful to life.
- OkayPhysicist 4y ago
  Well, better round up a referendum for a constitutional amendment then.
- 15155 4y ago
  > Declaration of Independence A document penned before the United States Constitution which has zero legal authority - a letter to King George III.