United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

[ThatZenoGuy]

Nothing to scoff at carronades though, a lot of navies liked them because you could throw more weight of shot at a target with the same given weight of gun.
Sure getting double the range out of a long gun is nice, but they are going to get closer anyways so might as well have a double-sized carronade to smash their hull to splinters.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Nothing to scoff at carronades though, a lot of navies liked them because you could throw more weight of shot at a target with the same given weight of gun.
Sure getting double the range out of a long gun is nice, but they are going to get closer anyways so might as well have a double-sized carronade to smash their hull to splinters.

I'm not saying carronades are bad, just that they are distinct from long guns and the distinction is important. If you pull up the actual privateers listed, most of them quite explicitly specify that their heavier guns were cannonades, which makes sense and in fact dovetails with my assertion that a nine-pounder long gun was one of the heaviest and most powerful weapons that naval privateers and pirates typically had access to.

When you look at these large, well-equipped privateers, you see the majority of their weapons being running six-pounder and nine-pounder long guns, twelve-pounder carronades. Heaviest things in those listings provided are 12-pounders of unspecified type that *might* be long guns, might be cannonades. And while significant weapons, these are really a different order of magnitude than proper naval warships, where "just" a frigate is going to be mounting 18 and 24 pounder long guns and 36 pounder and 48 pounder cannonades.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I'm not saying carronades are bad, just that they are distinct from long guns and the distinction is important. If you pull up the actual privateers listed, most of them quite explicitly specify that their heavier guns were cannonades, which makes sense and in fact dovetails with my assertion that a nine-pounder long gun was one of the heaviest and most powerful weapons that naval privateers and pirates typically had access to.

When you look at these large, well-equipped privateers, you see the majority of their weapons being running six-pounder and nine-pounder long guns, twelve-pounder carronades. Heaviest things in those listings provided are 12-pounders of unspecified type that *might* be long guns, might be cannonades. And while significant weapons, these are really a different order of magnitude than proper naval warships, where "just" a frigate is going to be mounting 18 and 24 pounder long guns and 36 pounder and 48 pounder cannonades.

There wasn't really any laws against buying huge weapons though, if privateers had smaller guns, it'd just be for cost or supply reasons.
It'd be like asking why Wagner doesn't have nukes, it's a little out of their paygrade (...And nowadays illegal).

 

[ShadowArxxy]

There wasn't really any laws against buying huge weapons though, if privateers had smaller guns, it'd just be for cost or supply reasons.
It'd be like asking why Wagner doesn't have nukes, it's a little out of their paygrade (...And nowadays illegal).

I didn't assert that there were laws against it, I said the government limited access to them by controlling the supply. This whole argument has gone way into tangent territory,and into a bizarre insistence that even when I go out of my way to specify that something was rare or not typical, somehow what I actually mean is, "this never ever happened".

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

I didn't assert that there were laws against it, I said the government limited access to them by controlling the supply. This whole argument has gone way into tangent territory,and into a bizarre insistence that even when I go out of my way to specify that something was rare or not typical, somehow what I actually mean is, "this never ever happened".

Do we have evidence of the government controlling the supply via legal means? That would be some cool stuff to post.

 

[bullethead]

Well, things are getting spicy for the ATF:

Article:

FORT WORTH, TX (June 30, 2023) – Today, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and FPC Action Foundation (FPCAF) announced that a federal judge has granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs in VanDerStok v. Garland, vacating the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule and preventing the federal government from enforcing it. The opinion can be viewed at FPCLegal.org.

“This case presents the question of whether the federal government may lawfully regulate partially manufactured firearm components, related firearm products, and other tools and materials in keeping with the Gun Control Act of 1968,” wrote Federal District Court Judge Reed O’Connor in his Order. “Because the Court concludes that the government cannot regulate those items without violating federal law, the Court holds that the government’s recently enacted Final Rule… is unlawful agency action taken in excess of the ATF’s statutory jurisdiction. On this basis, the Court vacates the Final Rule.”

“We’re thrilled to see the Court agree that ATF’s Frame or Receiver Rule exceeds the agency’s congressionally limited authority,” said Cody J. Wisniewski, FPCAF’s Senior Attorney for Constitutional Litigation and FPC’s counsel in this case. “With this decision, the Court has properly struck down ATF’s Rule and ensured that it cannot enforce that which it never had the authority to publish in the first place.”

“This is a monumental victory against the tyrannical ATF. Firearms Policy Coalition and FPC Law have argued that this rogue agency has unlawfully attacked gun owners in this latest round of ‘rulemaking’ and we are grateful to see the Court agree,” said Richard Thomson, FPC’s Vice President of Communications. “We will not stop, however, with this latest victory. FPC and FPC Law will continue to bring these cases to put a stop to the immoral and unconstitutional actions of the disarmament regime.”

Source: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc_and_fpcaf_win_federal_judge_vacates_atf_s_unlawful_frame_or_receiver_rule

 

[posh-goofiness]

Huh. So can I 3d print a firearm and tell the gov't to stick it or is that too broad an understanding of the ruling?

 

[Vetrom]

Huh. So can I 3d print a firearm and tell the gov't to stick it or is that too broad an understanding of the ruling?

Likely too broad and this case would probably not override state laws legislating against self-made firearms either. I could see ways of throwing a big monkey wrench into all the 'constructive posession' interpretations with this case though.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

It explicitly re-legalizes part kits which is what the new rule was meant to outlaw, but a *fully functional* firearm is still a firearm.

 

[DarthOne]

Gun Owners of America

@GunOwners

It is time to play "find the gun control" in the National Defense Authorization Act for 2024.

GOA analyzed both the 1236-page House & 1168-page Senate versions & found concerning language burried on page 229 of the Senate's accompanying committee report.

A thread.

https://twitter.com/GunOwners/status/1679525625210499072/photo/1

 

[Zachowon]

Services already don't allow us to carry on post and barracks people have to keep guns in the arms room.
On post housing has to keep them locked up for the most part.

This is probably part of the initiative to cut down on service member suicide.
Gun being the main way.
There are incentives that are being led by vets and civilians who are putting firth a simple solution.
Just fucking ask.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

Tl;Dr
ATF seizes navy guy's guns, modifies them to be functional then convicts him for owning functioning illegal firearms.

This basically sets precedent for the ATF to grab people's AR-15's, drill the 'mystical third hole' and convict you for owning a machinegun.

 

[Cherico]

Tl;Dr
ATF seizes navy guy's guns, modifies them to be functional then convicts him for owning functioning illegal firearms.

This basically sets precedent for the ATF to grab people's AR-15's, drill the 'mystical third hole' and convict you for owning a machinegun.

So when does the navy use it's might to fuck them for this? Because this is a major slap in the Navy's face

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

So when does the navy use it's might to fuck them for this? Because this is a major slap in the Navy's face

ATF are big boi feds, they're above any branch of the military. Grunts are expendable, loyal party members (ATF) aren't.

 

[Cherico]

ATF are big boi feds, they're above any branch of the military. Grunts are expendable, loyal party members (ATF) aren't.

Considering their obesity rates they are big boys.

But let me be clear, pissing off your grunts, the people who have miliatary training and high tech weapontry has historically never been a good idea. And the US navy has a lot more money, a lot more lawyers then the ATF who lets face it already have a fuck load of enemies and are the joke of the alphabet soup community.

 

[Wargamer08]

Considering their obesity rates they are big boys.

But let me be clear, pissing off your grunts, the people who have miliatary training and high tech weapontry has historically never been a good idea. And the US navy has a lot more money, a lot more lawyers then the ATF who lets face it already have a fuck load of enemies and are the joke of the alphabet soup community.

Right now the US government values it's anti-gun enforcers over it's combat navy. This is standard for leftwing US governments, to be focused on internal suppression of political opposition versus external foreign ones. If they manage to sleep walk into a simultaneous war with Russia and China they will likely have cause to regret their choice. As it is, it's let them consolidate power for decades, why would they change now?

 

[Cherico]

Right now the US government values it's anti-gun enforcers over it's combat navy. This is standard for leftwing US governments, to be focused on internal suppression of political opposition versus external foreign ones. If they manage to sleep walk into a simultaneous war with Russia and China they will likely have cause to regret their choice. As it is, it's let them consolidate power for decades, why would they change now?

For so many reasons its not going to last.

Quite simply put when you suck at actual governance your not keeping power forever, and consolidated power that is badly misused does not last. Pissing off the fighting men well just ask the Optimates how that went for them.

 

[Sailor.X]

ATF are big boi feds, they're above any branch of the military. Grunts are expendable, loyal party members (ATF) aren't.

That is funny. I can remember back when I was on deployment in the Persian Gulf in 93. That the IRS was trying to audit me. They wanted me to be flown back stateside for the audit. The Commander of 2nd fleet basically told them to go fuck themselves. Because they were not gonna fly an engineer back in the middle of a big operation. The audit was dropped by the IRS. When the DOD puts its foot down. Other agencies back the fuck off quick.

 

[Typhonis]

So does the sailor have a chance to appeal the decision and how would a higher court react to a federal agency tampering with evidence? You also have the Navy with an axe to grind.

 

[Sailor.X]

So does the sailor have a chance to appeal the decision and how would a higher court react to a federal agency tampering with evidence? You also have the Navy with an axe to grind.

Yes he does. I you watch the Armed Attorneys youtube channel. You can see how the ATF has been getting it's ass handed to it in the Courts. Appeal all the way to the SC and grab the popcorn. And the Navy can make life miserable for the ATF with a lot of soft power. The lawfare will be epic.