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

31–40 of 58 posts

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

#31

Post by glial »

dublin wrote: post #21
hotpotamus wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can accept that Bruen's arguments have a certain internal logic. What I don't understand is how we have decided weigh the "right" of having guns vs the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, the latter is what the government is for, and everything else -- even and especially the bill of rights -- is an implementation decision designed too further those aims.

Given that the US 22x more per capita gun deaths than the EU, perhaps we missed the mark. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like gun proliferation is in practice harmful to life.

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

#32

Post by quantified »

sweetbitter wrote: post #29
klyrs wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first amendment says nothing about a well regulated press.

"Well regulated" in this context means well-equipped, does it not?

It's really unclear, isn't it?

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

#33

Post by [deleted] »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #26
torstenvl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fla…

[deleted]

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

#34

Post by torstenvl »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #26
torstenvl wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 fla…

You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification.

I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled shotgun. Importantly, their reasoning was not that the Second Amendment does not protect individual rights, but that such a firearm had no reasonable relationship to contributing to the common defense.

It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179. Twenty-first century gun control proponents seem to suggest that it only pertains to those in the National Guard or another milita-like body organized by statue (e.g., the Texas State Guard), but that is simply not the case and never has been.

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

#35

Post by OkayPhysicist »

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…

You can't point at a law to contradict a constitutional right, so presumably a "right to bear ICBMs" argument would hinge on the law being an unconstitutional restriction of their 2nd Amendment rights. It would be mildly amusing if the ultimate decision worked out to "you can own nuclear material, but ONLY for the purpose of weaponizing it. No energy allowed!"

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

#36

Post by feet »

quantified wrote: post #13
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.

Many justices were probably born around then. How can something originating in their lifetimes be considered a tradition by them?

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

#37

Post by OkayPhysicist »

glial wrote: post #31
dublin wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I can accept that Bruen's arguments have a certain internal logic. What I don't understand is how we have decided weigh the "right" of having guns vs the "right" to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. According to the Declaration of Independence, the latter is what the government is for , and everything else -- even and especially the bill of rights -- is an implementation decision designed too further those…

Well, better round up a referendum for a constitutional amendment then.

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

#38

Post by seanmcdirmid »

torstenvl wrote: post #34
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 fla…

You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification. I specifically cited United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which the Supreme Court reversed a lower court's holding that the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional as it pertained to possession of a short-barreled sho…

> You are literally the only person saying it is "just flavor." Please do not repeat partisan talking points, as they do not contribute to thoughtful discussion or intellectual edification.

That is a lot of words for committing an ad hominem.

> It also explicitly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," id. at 179, not whatever 21st century gun control proponents want it to mean.

The Swiss militia was in existence at the time the constitution was written, they knew exactly what they were talking about. And it is exactly what they still have and what we no longer have.

Miller is pro-interpretation that the first clause of the 2nd amendment isn't meaningless.

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

#39

Post by himinlomax »

glial wrote: post #27
s1artibartfast wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There seems to be some (literary, rather than judicial) precedent for that meaning of the expression, but on the other hand I haven't seen conclusive arguments as to why they would have chosen that particular turn of phrase to say something other than "governed by rules."

Consider another part of the US Constitution, the Commerce clause: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

In this case "Regulate" is clearly used to mean the action of setting rules. It's a bit weird that they would use that word again in a legal context to mean something non-legal.

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

#40

Post by suggestion »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #25
s1artibartfast wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to keep and eat food, the balanced breakfast or the people?

Post reply on HN