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

21–30 of 58 posts

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

#21

Post by dublin »

hotpotamus wrote: post #3
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.

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

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.)

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

#22

Post by klyrs »

bediger4000 wrote: post #18
klyrs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment says nothing about a well regulated press.

I was afraid to mention that phrasing.

It sounds like you're fishing for an explanation of something but afraid to spell it out. All you can lose is up to 5 karma per comment

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

#23

Post by nautilius »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #20
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.

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_devic...

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

#24

Post by torstenvl »

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…

> There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text.

Nobody says it's meaningless, it just doesn't mean what gun control proponents want it to mean, due to (a) a purpose, even a stated one, not being a limit on Constitutional rights; and (b) what the word "militia" means in the text.

(a) "The prefatory clause does not suggest that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting." District of Columbia v. Heller. There are numerous rights in the Constitution that are not limited solely to their original or documented purpose. The equal protection clause protects against gender, sex, and sexuality discrimination just as much as it protects against discrimination based on race or condition of former servitude. The First Amendment protects artistic expression and personal speech just as much as it protects political speech. A documented purpose does not limit the applicability of a Constitutional right.

(b) It is nearly a century-old precedent that the militia refers to every able-bodied man, not just those in, e.g., the National Guard. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939). That is why "the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence," District of Columbia v. Heller, rather than being created by Congress or a state.

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

#25

Post by seanmcdirmid »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #15
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fa…

It definitely means a well organized militia, like the ones they use to defend Switzerland, which every male belongs to and has to go through a year or two of conscription before they take a gun home.

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

#26

Post by seanmcdirmid »

torstenvl wrote: post #24
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There are some debates, however, that the first clause of the second amendment actually is meaningful and not just meaningless flavor text. Nobody says it's meaningless, it just doesn't mean what gun control proponents want it to mean, due to (a) a purpose, even a stated one, not being a limit on Constitutional rights; and (b) what the word "militia" means in the text. (a) "The prefatory clause does not suggest tha…

"District of Columbia v. Heller" was in 2008, and was the first time the Supreme court ruled that the 2nd amendment allowed the right to bear arms outside of a well organized militia. In fact, they had 4 chances to to do that in the early 20th century alone, passing on it. It was only with a more conservative court that existed recently that the interpretation that the militia clause of the 2nd amendment was just flavor case became law of the land.

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

#27

Post by glial »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #15
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fa…

> Well regulated means well armed

How do you figure this? Is there judicial precedent for this particular interpretation?

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

#28

Post by glial »

rufus_foreman wrote: post #20
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.

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

I'm not a lawyer, but development of nuclear weapons is called an "arms race".

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

#29

Post by sweetbitter »

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.

"Well regulated" in this context means well-equipped, does it not?
Post reply on HN