3 ms·

I legitimately wonder if there's a limiting principal the modern Supreme Court would accept to ban private ownership of a MANPAD.

hef19898 4y ago
I'll tale one of those Gepard AA tanks, once Ukraine doesn't need them anymore. You can drive one those to Walmart for weekly groccery shopping! And you propably din't need a concealed carry liscence. Edit: I once saw people live firing WW2 anti-tank artillery somewhere in Nevada or some similar, desert-ish place. So, if a modern Gepard is out of the question, maybe a WW2 8.8 flak cannon would qualify as a historical collection piece?
- shepherdjerred 4y ago
  Tangentially related, the Washington department of transportation has M60 tanks used for avalanche control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA
sarchertech 4y ago
A MANPAD would already be classified as a destructive device and I doubt you could even find licensed dealer who has one. Since it needs a stamp from the ATF and a licensed dealer needs to handle the transfer, they are effectively already banned.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  > they are effectively already banned And do you think that is consistent with an originalist view of the 2nd amendment?
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    Depends on how you interpret the 2nd amendment. Different originalist justices will interpret it differently. The current court in their most recent 2nd amendment ruling indicates that their new test will allow many current gun regulations to stand. If the current conservative justices believe any weapons at all should can be banned (which they said they do—of course they could always be lying) then you have to think they believe a MANPAD can.
    - hotpotamus 4y ago
      > Different originalist justices will interpret it differently. I detect some irony. But I will say I'm not trying to be clever here and ask some sort of leading questions - I really just wonder what limits there actually are now. I doubt any of the federal weapons laws of the 20th century could be passed and deemed constitutional here in the 21st. But if they make full-auto small arms as easy to buy as semi-auto, I'd definitely pick something up.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  Suppose you manufactured/assembled one yourself.
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    I know you can’t manufacture an automatic weapon without a license from the ATF. I don’t know specifically about destructive devices. It is illegal to manufacture explosives, and you can’t transfer explosives to an unlicensed person. So my guess is no, not without a license that you aren’t going to get unless you have a legitimate business interest, e.g., manufacturing them to sell the the military.

hef19898 4y ago

I'll tale one of those Gepard AA tanks, once Ukraine doesn't need them anymore. You can drive one those to Walmart for weekly groccery shopping! And you propably din't need a concealed carry liscence. Edit: I once saw people live firing WW2 anti-tank artillery somewhere in Nevada or some similar, desert-ish place. So, if a modern Gepard is out of the question, maybe a WW2 8.8 flak cannon would qualify as a historical collection piece?

shepherdjerred 4y ago
Tangentially related, the Washington department of transportation has M60 tanks used for avalanche control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZLfboCceGA

sarchertech 4y ago

A MANPAD would already be classified as a destructive device and I doubt you could even find licensed dealer who has one. Since it needs a stamp from the ATF and a licensed dealer needs to handle the transfer, they are effectively already banned.

hotpotamus 4y ago
> they are effectively already banned And do you think that is consistent with an originalist view of the 2nd amendment?
- sarchertech 4y ago
  Depends on how you interpret the 2nd amendment. Different originalist justices will interpret it differently. The current court in their most recent 2nd amendment ruling indicates that their new test will allow many current gun regulations to stand. If the current conservative justices believe any weapons at all should can be banned (which they said they do—of course they could always be lying) then you have to think they believe a MANPAD can.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    > Different originalist justices will interpret it differently. I detect some irony. But I will say I'm not trying to be clever here and ask some sort of leading questions - I really just wonder what limits there actually are now. I doubt any of the federal weapons laws of the 20th century could be passed and deemed constitutional here in the 21st. But if they make full-auto small arms as easy to buy as semi-auto, I'd definitely pick something up.
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
Suppose you manufactured/assembled one yourself.
- sarchertech 4y ago
  I know you can’t manufacture an automatic weapon without a license from the ATF. I don’t know specifically about destructive devices. It is illegal to manufacture explosives, and you can’t transfer explosives to an unlicensed person. So my guess is no, not without a license that you aren’t going to get unless you have a legitimate business interest, e.g., manufacturing them to sell the the military.