Submitted by Guest Blogger, Lawrence Rafferty
In light of the tragic shooting today in Arizona, I have to wonder aloud if automatic weapons should be banned by this country. I realize that the 2nd Amendment right to own a gun is strongly defended by the NRA and other right-wing groups, but I am sick and tired of reading about all of the shootings the past couple of years. Whether it was the shootings earlier this year at various United States Marine sites around the country or the California shootout in July with the guy who was trying to attack the ACLU and the TIDES non-profit organization; the vitriol seems to be on the rise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40978517/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/ And with politicians fanning the flames, this vitriol is not bound to be diminished anytime soon.
The Second Amendment is a very concise Amendment. “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.” http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 We have seen various attempts over the years by the Feds and many States and municipalities to restrict gun ownership. The recent Supreme Court case of McDonald , et al vs. City of Chicago, Illinois, et al affirmed the fundamental right of Americans to own a gun by a 5-4 decision. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf The McDonald decision did not give us any guidance on what kind of restrictions to that fundamental right the Supreme Court would allow. However, how can automatic weapons or high-powered rifles be exempt from an outright banning of their ownership or at least significant restrictions on their use? Can a good faith argument really be made that an automatic weapon is necessary for personal protection?
The Supreme Court Justices do not live in a bubble and they must see what damage these weapons have already brought to families across the nation. Don’t they?
Expertly said, savaship.
Of course, calls for legislating during the so-called crises like these is the modus operandi for a government continually seeking to seize rights and property. Patriot Act, TARP to name two very costly and recent examples.
YES, but it won’t happen in this country that is filled with gun nuts and the politicians that kowtow to them.
I am with FF LEO on this one….when you regulate one area you by definition regulate many unintended areas…..I am not for abortions either…but I think that the state or federal government has no right to regulate what is essentially a moral issue between the person having a procedure performed and their conscience…..the same with guns and knives…its a personal choice…
This is my take, and I hope it’s not too convoluted, but my answer to whether or not full auto should be banned in general has to be no. In 1936 Himmler was put in charge of all German civilian police. These police used gun control laws to gather up, and annihilate those of Jewish faith living in Germany.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to leave “the people” the power to fight back against “a well regulated militia” if that militia were to become tyrannical. I guarantee to you, that our current well regulated militias will not hesitate to use fully automatic weapons on you, the people, if given the order. This is why my answer to the question must be no, there should be no ban.
In contrast, I believe most violent crimes happen because the citizens have gone lazy on our responsibility to protect our most valuable piece of property… our lives. You guys know that guy at work, who constantly tells you that whatever you want him to do is “not his job”, then continues to lower the productivity of that workplace? Well we are much the same as that guy… protecting ourselves is “not our job”… but I have news… it IS your job. If everyone did their job, the second shots are fired by a crazy person, he/she would be dropped by a responsible citizen protecting him/herself, or others.
This is of course a terrifying concept if you believe that most of the people in the world are “bad”, and for that I can say nothing to change your minds. I could appeal to your sense of logic, and try to explain that if everyone did their job, there would be a great system of checks and balances etc, but instead, the loudest voices will insist that our government legislate us all as though each and every one of us are insane psycho killers… Except LEOs, for whatever reason we seem to trust them explicitly, as though they are not people too… Or we delude ourselves into thinking in 1938 Germany, the LEOs weren’t responsible for the gathering, and sometimes instant killing of an entire race of people.
Bill g.,
You are not naive. It is a long story. I would check out the case that I linked to and you will see various earlier cases that will give you some history. I am not a criminal law expert by any means, but there are others here that may be able to give you a better answer.
naive question fron non-lawyer: could one of you lawyers succinctly explain (or suggest a reference that would do so) how the courts of our land got us from “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…” to everybody should have a right to carry a gun?
It looks like we poked a hole in the hornets nest with this topic. OS, I really don’t know how I would define high powered. In the recent shootings at the Marine facilities the media reports stated that the authorities thought it was a high powered rifle. I take that to mean long distance and large caliber, but I do not know much about guns. I only know what damage they can do.
Chris, I agree with Former Fed. This issue has festered for years and politicians of all stripes have taken advantage of the gun lobby and the NRA to whip people into a frenzy. The latest example of that is the false, but continual claims by the Right that Obama was going to “take away your guns”. If we don’t get these weapons of personal destruction out of peoples hands, many more innocents will die or be maimed.
eniobob,
I can only hope that these efforts would be more successful than the War on Drugs.
Buddha,
I don’t believe that I claimed that the latest shooting was done with a fully automatic weapon. I just used the term automatic. I understand the difference, but to me if it has teh ability to run off many shots without reloading, it is troublesome. I don’t think a ban or restriction on these weapons would prevent the law enforcement agencies from stocking whatever weapon they need to protect society, but it may reduce the number of them on the market.
Chris,
I disagree. This is the time and place. Please provide us with your knowledge and experience regarding this subject.
Would that effort if tryed,be as successful as the War On Drugs or Stopping Illegal Immigration?
Just asking.
I think this is inflammatory and prejudicial timing to ask about (FULLY-)AUTOMATIC weapons within hours of a horrific crime apparently committed by a SEMI-AUTOMATIC weapon. A lot of people are confused (and perhaps intentionally confusing) on the differences between them but there is a “difference in kind” here.
On the semi-auto question remember that you can also fire a revolver quickly, reload it quickly with the right loader, etc. The only real difference between revolvers and semiauto pistols is that some, not all, of the latter are ‘double pull’ and second (and later shots) require less trigger pressure than the first shot.
If you take out semi-auto pistols and revolvers, what’s left? Single shot derringers? Is that going to sufficient for self-defense?
Thanks, FFLEO.
puzzling,
Since I noticed your comment, I owe you an apology when earlier I somewhat rebuffed your suggestion that the guest bloggers should post their names in a very clear manner to ensure that they could not be confused with Professor Turley’s or other guests’ remarks. It was/is a very good suggestion.
There was a headline on HuffPo that an automatic weapon was used in the Arizona shootings, but the text of the article had the weapon(s) used as semi-automatic. A semi-auto is a far cry from an automatic weapon, commonly called a machine gun. A semi-automatic weapon must have the trigger pulled for each shot. Full-auto weapons fire multiple times on a single trigger pull. To own a full-auto weapon, one much jump through all kinds of legal hoops and pay a very large tax to the Feds. Then you need to mortgage your house and sell all your belongings to just afford to buy a fully automatic weapon.
As far as high powered, I must ask what is defined as high powered? If it is being shot at you, some air-rifles would appear to be a high powered weapon. Hunting rifles, most pistols and even my antique muzzle loading rifle and pistol are powerful weapons. The chances of making them illegal is whistling past the graveyard. Not gonna happen.
raff,
I’m with FFLEO on this one to this point:
There is a huge difference between semi- and fully automatic weapons or semi-autos that can be converted to full auto.
Semi-automatic is fine. Semi-automatic pistols have civilian (and LE) utility.
Fully automatic weapons or convertibles like AR-15’s? Not so much.
However, at this point, this looks like a crime committed with a semi-automatic handgun with an extended clip.
An armed citizenry is the last bulwark against tyranny, but let’s be honest about human nature. Some people are just too batshit crazy to be allowed to have a fully automatic weapon. We’d be looking at twice the number – minimum – of dead if this guy had had a full auto anything.
rafflaw,
I prefer to let others comment first. This is a very good topic.
puzzling,
that wasn’t my initial thought, but I would love to be out of both countries.
Does this proposal include banning automatic weapons used on thousands of innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan?
I thought I might hear from you Former Fed. Is there a legitimate need for automatic weapons that can be used to kill and maim many people at one time?
NO!