Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 58 posts

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#11

Post by daveslash »

barbazoo wrote: post #9
digdugdirk wrote: post #2

"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling." I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.

Is the US in any way special that makes this process of regulating weapons so difficult? Do other countries not have 2A-like legislation?

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala.

Countries that don't have that baked into their foundational documentation have an easier time actually putting regulations into place and enforcing them. Because the right to guns is in our charter, it makes regulation much more difficult to implement and enforce (not to mention, much more unpopular because to many folks it feels like a betrayal of the charter).

That's what makes the US different than most other countries in that regard.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#12

Post by powerslacker »

barbazoo wrote: post #9
digdugdirk wrote: post #2

"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling." I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.

Is the US in any way special that makes this process of regulating weapons so difficult? Do other countries not have 2A-like legislation?

The Federal government in the US is (on paper) extremely limited in comparison to other countries. The US constitution was written specifically to limit the potential for tyrannical or mob rule. To regulate or disarm the citizenry of the United States is a particularly arduous task because the US Federal government does not have that kind of sovereignty.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#13

Post by quantified »

digdugdirk wrote: post #2

"U.S. District Judge Joseph Goodwin in Charleston found Wednesday that the law was not consistent with the United States' "historical tradition of firearm regulation," the new standard laid out by the Supreme Court in its landmark ruling." I was waiting to see the exciting places this precedent would take us. Though I have to admit, I was expecting the "AR-15's aren't muskets" argument to get out there first.

Interestingly, the boundary between "recent" and "tradition" is not at all clear. If a 1968 law is not old enough to be traditional, what law is? It's certainly not "ancient tradition". Is there a fixed year that demarcates "traditional" from "recent", or is it a distance back from the present?

Apply the same logic to all the clauses of the constitution, and we're going to get super weird pretty quickly.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#14

Post by seanmcdirmid »

daveslash wrote: post #11
barbazoo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the US in any way special that makes this process of regulating weapons so difficult? Do other countries not have 2A-like legislation?

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala. Countries that don't have that ba…

> Because the right to guns is in our charter, it makes regulation much more difficult to implement and enforce (not to mention, much more unpopular because to many folks it feels like a betrayal of the charter).

There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. The interpretation of the second amendment therefore has undergone a lot of change over time, and is now interpreted way more broadly than it was in the early years of the country (i.e. when many of the founding fathers were still alive). An interpretation where the militia clause was largely meaningless didn't really come into vogue until the 1970s, and the NRA has a version of the 2nd amendment on its headquarters that edits it out.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#15

Post by s1artibartfast »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14
daveslash wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala. Countries that don't have that ba…

> Because the right to guns is in our charter, it makes regulation much more difficult to implement and enforce (not to mention, much more unpopular because to many folks it feels like a betrayal of the charter). There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. The interpretation of the second amendment therefore has undergone…

my understanding is the exact opposite. how odd.

>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.

Well regulated means well armed. Militia means citizen army, and the people means the people.

It is hard to come to a different understanding of the amendment without redefining these terms.

My understanding is that those favoring a living constitution focus on the purpose or why of the amendment was there, and and that a citizen militia is not longer necessary.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#17

Post by rufus_foreman »

daveslash wrote: post #11
barbazoo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is the US in any way special that makes this process of regulating weapons so difficult? Do other countries not have 2A-like legislation?

Gun ownership is baked into our founding documentation (The Constitution); as such, it's part of the very premise of our governmental foundation. All other laws, regulations, and everything else about our government is built from and traceable to The Constitution. As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala. Countries that don't have that ba…

>> As far as I know, only 2 other countries in the world have something similar in their Constitution: Mexico and Guatemala

That's what it says at https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/04/05/how-many-countries-have..., along with the note that the US "is the only one that does not explicitly include a restrictive condition".

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#18

Post by bediger4000 »

klyrs wrote: post #16
bediger4000 wrote: post #6

Why does the US treat 1st Amendment freedom of speech differently than 2nd Amendment keeping and bearing arms?

The first amendment says nothing about a well regulated press.

I was afraid to mention that phrasing.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#19

Post by shantbefringed »

filoleg wrote: post #10
spoonjim wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 bein…

No post body was provided.

Re: Ban on guns with serial numbers removed is unconstitutional -U.S. judge

#20

Post by rufus_foreman »

spoonjim wrote: post #4
hotpotamus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

When have nuclear weapons ever been considered "arms"? Infantry don't carry nuclear weapons.
Post reply on HN