Here we go again. More circumventing the 2nd by the Admin

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: nenothtu

Arms has been seen as Small Arms, or Arms that are deploy-able by a person.

The how and why it came to be is not something I have ever looked into.

Good question though.
Guess my Military/American history isn't as complete as I thought.

That's because "large arms" - crew served weapons and up, usually need a crew. They are "held" by a collective, either a larger or smaller one, but are not banned from possession by "the people" (a collective term) in the 2nd Amendment.

They may be in Joe Schmoe's back yard, but Joe Schmoe is incapable of putting them to use by himself. In that case, they are held by "the people", even though Joe Schmoe may be listed as the owner of record. Joe may "possess" it, but he cannot make use of it alone. The important thing here is that it is not under government control, but rather control of "the people" for purposes of this discussion.

In Boonesboro, KY, during the Revolution, the British had brought a force of Indians to take the fort. The defenders MADE a cannon out of a hollow log. They could do so because they were not banned from "possession" under US law, although they were prohibited from such under British law. it is obvious why the Brits didn't want the colonials to be armed as well as they were, isn't it? The colonials universally ignored that to create a nation.

BTW, I believe that cannon made of a log (bound with iron straps) only fired two or 3 times before it burst. Still, it got the point across.

a reply to: butcherguy

Thanks for that Butch...

From what I found ...a Temp Protection order doesn't confiscate guns...a full protection order can if an "active protection from abuse order" is granted, but in order for that to be granted all parties must appear before a judge and testify, witnesses can be called etc. and a legal determination as to potential threat is made prior to confiscation.

It is not the same as simply asking for a restraining order and someones guns are confiscated. That takes a special order and a hearing for all parties...accuser and defendant.

www.legis.state.pa.us...
www.womenslaw.org...

originally posted by: introvert
I completely agree. But this is highlighting the issue in the debate. For the militias and people of the US to stand it's ground against the government, we would have to have access to all sorts of nasty toys. The government has nukes, ICBM's, drones and a variety of other armaments that we simply cannot have.

And rightfully so. We do not need those types of things in the hands of everyday, average Americans.

I actually agree with you, at least to a certain extent. While I do believe that 2A technically applies to all weapons with a suitable purpose for military and militia use, there are some problems with that at the extreme ends of the argument. Realistically, there does have to be some limitation on how that applies to individual rights, because I don't think any sane person want the average person owning a nuclear weapon. Of course, that does indeed raise the question of where the line is drawn. Personally, I tend to believe it refers to the broad classes of weapons in existence and in private use at the time 2A was written, plus any technological advancements and modernizations of those. This effectively covers all modern firearms (plus a few things maybe it shouldn't!). But yes, you're right, that's my own interpretation, not necessarily someone else's and it is somewhat problematic. Realistically, I don't know how you fix that, and I certainly don't trust the .gov to rewrite the thing.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

Apparently each person has their own definition of what "arms" mean.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a right when it's up to individual interpretation, does it not?

Not if it's an individual right. Who else do you think is qualified to issue YOUR rights to you, and define them FOR you?

a reply to: introvert

My point wasn't the the definition of "arms" so much as to point out that it is an individual right.

How can an individual have a right to a weapon system that requires six or more people to operate?

Tanks, nukes, subs, none of these are arms as they are not operated by an individual.

It's when we try to second guess better men that we come up short.

The founding fathers knew exactly what they were writing at the time. No amount of word play about muskets or living documents is going to change things. The Constitution was written to protect the American people at it's founding as well as into the future. Politicians know they can never do away with the Second Amendment so they whittle away at the rights it provides with regulation and "soft bans" all the while claiming common sense.

Common sense would be:

If you are convicted of a crime while in the possession of an illegal firearm you serve life - no parole and no plea.

Make the penalty so painful for criminals that they refuse to carry. Don't punish the law abiding citizens for the crimes they didn't commit.

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

I know they are in North Carolina - § 50B-3.1. Surrender and disposal of firearms; violations; exemptions.

Surrendered upon service of the protective order, not after a conviction of the cause it was issued for. In NC, they are often issued for no cause at all beyond an accusation by a pissed off partner. For the same reason, the courts "findings" for the order generally include a surrender of weapons, because only one side is being heard in court for the ex parte order, and no defense is permitted.

Interesting...Here it seems to infer that NC law gives you the opportunity to mount a defense prior to prohibitions?

Finally, pursuant to state law, no person may obtain a permit to purchase a handgun if he or she is subject to a court order that:
•Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;

smartgunlaws.org...

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

Apparently each person has their own definition of what "arms" mean.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a right when it's up to individual interpretation, does it not?

Maybe the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bare "Arms"...ya know, short sleeves and such?

Nah. It's pretty clearly spelled as "bear arms". Now you might argue that guarantees US citizens the right to own, possess, and carry around an upper limb between their shoulder and wrist if you prefer. In that case, I guess, the government does not have a right to come into your house and chop off your upper limbs... but then again, how common an occurrence IS that?

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

I am going to need a reliable link or citation before responding.

No offense, but folks are just saying stuff...Help me out and give me something to back it up.

Right offhand I can't give you an internet link but I can tell you that I was sitting in the courtroom when a relative was granted an Emergency Protection Order by a judge. At the same time the judge ordered the violent spouse to keep his distance, he also ordered him to surrender all firearms to the local sheriff's department for the two-week duration of the EPO. Upon the issuance of the Domestic Violence Order, the directive to hold his firearms was extended to the three year period of the DVO.
Here is a link which explains Kentucky's EPO and DVO statutes. nky-criminal-defense-lawyer.com...

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

Apparently each person has their own definition of what "arms" mean.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a right when it's up to individual interpretation, does it not?

Maybe the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bare "Arms"...ya know, short sleeves and such?

Nah. It's pretty clearly spelled as "bear arms". Now you might argue that guarantees US citizens the right to own, possess, and carry around an upper limb between their shoulder and wrist if you prefer. In that case, i guess, the government does not have a right to come into your house and chop off your upper limbs... but then again, how common an occurrence IS that?

Ahhh.... "Bear Arms".. of course... colonial Americans had a robust trade going on at the time involving bear arms...eventually for convenience it evolved into lucky rabbits foots which were big in the 70's. Bear arms were difficult and messy to stockpile and obviously don't fit easily onto a keychain, but I can see why they chose to preserve the right to do so.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Actually in most States, firearms are confiscated when an Order of Protection is served. No due process at all.

The person, who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, is not provided such things.

I know they are in North Carolina - § 50B-3.1. Surrender and disposal of firearms; violations; exemptions.

Surrendered upon service of the protective order, not after a conviction of the cause it was issued for. In NC, they are often issued for no cause at all beyond an accusation by a pissed off partner. For the same reason, the courts "findings" for the order generally include a surrender of weapons, because only one side is being heard in court for the ex parte order, and no defense is permitted.

Interesting...Here it seems to infer that NC law gives you the opportunity to mount a defense prior to prohibitions?

Finally, pursuant to state law, no person may obtain a permit to purchase a handgun if he or she is subject to a court order that:
•Was issued after a hearing of which the person received actual notice, and at which the person had an opportunity to participate;

smartgunlaws.org...

No, that is for purchase of handgun permits for future purchases. It does not bear on the immediate confiscation at the time of service of the ex parte order. Those weapons are taken, period. Now it may be that you have permits purchased prior to the order, and that you do not surrender those permits, and go straight out and purchase another gun, but they are supposed to take those permits as well - assuming you haven't "lost" them, so badly that they can't find them.

What you are reading here is future actions, what you have to go through to restore your rights to purchase AFTER the court hearings. The confiscation takes place BEFORE any hearings other than the ex parte hearing which the accused is neither allowed to attend nor defend against.

a reply to: diggindirt

Well I am all for convicted Domestic Abusers having their guns confiscated.

But only after they have their day in court and an opportunity to mount a defense..

So...Mixed on that.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: nenothtu

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: 200Plus
a reply to: macman

Most sane people would agree.

An individual right is describing an individual's weapon.

Apparently each person has their own definition of what "arms" mean.

Kind of defeats the purpose of having a right when it's up to individual interpretation, does it not?

Maybe the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to bare "Arms"...ya know, short sleeves and such?

Nah. It's pretty clearly spelled as "bear arms". Now you might argue that guarantees US citizens the right to own, possess, and carry around an upper limb between their shoulder and wrist if you prefer. In that case, i guess, the government does not have a right to come into your house and chop off your upper limbs... but then again, how common an occurrence IS that?

Ahhh.... "Bear Arms".. of course... colonial Americans had a robust trade going on at the time involving bear arms...eventually for convenience it evolved into lucky rabbits foots which were big in the 70's. Bear arms were difficult and messy to stockpile and obviously don't fit easily onto a keychain, but I can see why they chose to preserve the right to do so.

Key chain? The last bear arm I carried around for good luck had to be dragged along by a LOGGING chain! I threw it away after two weeks - the reek got to be a bit burdensome at job interviews.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: diggindirt

Well I am all for convicted Domestic Abusers having their guns confiscated.

But only after they have their day in court and an opportunity to mount a defense..

So...Mixed on that.

"Domestic abuse" is a misdemeanor in most states. Are there any other misdemeanors you are willing to give up your rights for? maybe give up the right to leave your house if convicted of jaywalking?

Domestic abuse is the most abused part of the legal system as far as I can tell. There are a number of genuine, and tragic, cases, but the greater majority appear to be revenge by pissed off partners, and nothing more. Personally, I believe the accuser should do the same jail time the accused would have done if he or she is found "not guilty". that chance might cut down on a lot of the foolishness the statutes are being used for, and give more impact to the genuine cases.

So, would you be willing to give up the right to leave your house if your partner got pissed off and accused you of jaywalking in revenge, with the objective of confining you to your home?

a reply to: Indigo5

I have a friend that had no hearing of any sort and had his guns taken from him. He had a protection order issued against him because he grabbed his son (15 y/o) when the son initiated violence against him. His son called the police and they enabled his filing of the PFA. It was issued on the word of the child alone and they took his firearms immediately after the judge issued the order.

a reply to: Indigo5

Call your local PD for your 100% verification.

a reply to: introvert

It was simply understood that Govt didn't have a say in this. The 2nd is clear.

Now, I am for a cemented statement of "2nd Amendment means a US citizen can own, with out restriction, any and all Arms/Small Arms/Firearms".

A tank is a vehicle. A jet is a vehicle. A warhead is not an Arm.

All the folks arguing about the meaning of "arms" in the 2nd Amendment, just go ahead and admit that you're talking about machineguns.

The red herrings about nuclear weapons and submarines are completely irrational and are only a way for you to beat around the bush.

If a private citizen has enough money to purchase a functioning Abrams tank, do you think that their first course of action will be to use that tank for crime? The governments of our planet currently own all of that sort of equipment and they don't exactly have a track record of good deeds done with their "arms" so what exactly is the argument? Private individuals can already buy functioning tanks and artillery pieces but they're, quite obviously, prohibitively expensive and that certainly wouldn't change just because of looser restrictions.

What you folks really want to argue about are machineguns. They are the only "military arm" that would be truly attainable to the average person if all 2nd Amendment restrictions went away.

Stop tap dancing around it and say what you mean.

a reply to: nenothtu

Understood, hence the Individuals Right.

a reply to: macman

I think that you and I agree more than we disagree.

The problem I have is that the 2nd amendment seems to be open to too much interpretation by all of us that seem to have varying opinions on what the amendment actually covers.

I wish we could sit down as a nation, drink a beer and put this to rest once and for all. I'm tired of the debate and I'm tired of the constant bickering about how bad guns are. Conversely, I'm tired of the pro-2nd crowd taking every news story about firearms and making it seem like a full confiscation effort is coming....which is absurd.

a reply to: Indigo5

It's correct in that case.
Hence my USE of here.
Source not withstanding WHAT SO EVER.