United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion

Reader mode
ShadowArxxy said:
The cost of upkeep was an issue with the *ship as a whole* in his hands, not specifically the guns.



Pirates rarely fired their guns at all, yes; the upkeep cost was for the ship overall. Privateers likewise rarely fired their guns, acting as state-sanctioned commerce raiders who went after hostile nations' civilian shipping, *not* warships. Basically, privateers use the same limited equipment and tactics as pirates.

In other words: the existence of privateers certainly demonstrates a historical precedent that the Second Amendment *does* reasonably extend to field guns, but they aren't on par with full warships and it was not practical even back then to support a full warship as a private enterprise.

Unfortunately, not actually using the guns is rather antithetical to a militia, as they need to *at minimum* drill enough to be able to smoothly operate a cannon under field conditions.
Click to expand...

The East India company maintained a private military fleet, British, not American I know, but it was possible for private companies and people to maintain a force at arms comparable to contemporary nation-states, at least to a degree.
 
Ixian said:
The East India company maintained a private military fleet, British, not American I know, but it was possible for private companies and people to maintain a force at arms comparable to contemporary nation-states, at least to a degree.
Click to expand...

True, but the East India Trading Company was a company that verged on being a nation-state unto itself, was granted pseudo-sovereign monopoly trading rights by the British, and even then the largest and most heavily armed East Indiamen were still only equivalent to frigates and not ships of the line. We know this because the Royal Navy actually took several of the large East Indiamen into service and converted them into warships; for example, the EITC's Lascelles became HMS Madras, rated as a 56-gun fourth rate.

Note also that the EITC found that the large East Indiamen were no longer economically viable when the company lost its monopoly status, and had to switch to much smaller, faster ships of the "Blackwall" pattern.

----

Edit: Also, one can compare the difference in armament between a maximum-size East Indiaman operating under letter of marque as one of the best-equipped privateers in history, and an East Indiaman of the exact same size and time period which was converted into a full Royal Navy frigate:

East Indiaman Earl of Abervagenny: 32 guns, on first voyage a mix of 12-pounder and 9-pounders, on later voyages a mix of 18-pounder, 9-pounder, and 6-pounders.

Frigate HMS Madras: 28x 32-pounder + 28x 18-pounder
 
Last edited:
And again, Frigates also were simply better for the job that merchant fleets wanted them to do, which was pirate hunting/patrol/escort over ships of the line. Frigates tended to both be faster and more maneuverable than ships of the line due to their smaller size and differences in hull shape (Ships of the line had to have wide hulls which increased drag to maximize stability for their multiple gun decks while frigates could be narrower and thus faster hulls having to support only one gun deck). This meant they could intercept and run down small pirate ships, keep up with trade convoys, and maneuver within those convoys to protect them.

Bigger isn't always better in combat terms, a big ship of the line if it couldn't maneuver into place to protect merchants or could be outrun by pirate sloops was worthless in the mission that merchants needed it for. Likewise Frigates were not well suited to line battles against ships of the line in that they tended to lack the big guns and enough guns to engage. Even the famous American-pattern Frigates would not tangle with the big ships of the line, and they were basically the "Battlecruisers" of the era, outgunning most non-American frigates (of course, this was purposefully, they were designed to outgun similar sized ships while being able to outrun opponents that could overpower them since the US Navy was not going to be as big as any European one for decades into the future). But in the end mission is what matters and for merchants, if they bought a warship, would focus on a warship that fit the mission they needed and not just waste money on the biggest and most expensive ship that couldn't then do the job they needed it to do. Only governments are that wasteful.
 
The East India Trading Company is just further proof that in our common law heritage private ownership of weapons of war beyond crew served weapons is not just an American ideal.

The difference is in America “We the People” are citizens have the same rights as the feudalist ( the historical forerunners of socialist). The “All men are created equal”, belief is relevant. Something we have drifted away from.

The reality is for a large portion of American history “The people” had better armaments than the lowly soldiers.
Think start of civil war, Indian wars, Spanish American war when Teddy Rosevelt bought his private army of Volunteers, 30/40 Krags and Maxim MG’s.
 
PeaceMaker 03 said:
The East India Trading Company is just further proof that in our common law heritage private ownership of weapons of war beyond crew served weapons is not just an American ideal.

The difference is in America “We the People” are citizens have the same rights as the feudalist ( the historical forerunners of socialist). The “All men are created equal”, belief is relevant. Something we have drifted away from.

The reality is for a large portion of American history “The people” had better armaments than the lowly soldiers.
Think start of civil war, Indian wars, Spanish American war when Teddy Rosevelt bought his private army of Volunteers, 30/40 Krags and Maxim MG’s.
Click to expand...
The krag was used by regular troops in the Spanish American war.
And in the civil war, depends on the unit, some were better equipped by the federal then by the stuff they owned.
 
S'task said:
And again, Frigates also were simply better for the job that merchant fleets wanted them to do, which was pirate hunting/patrol/escort over ships of the line. Frigates tended to both be faster and more maneuverable than ships of the line due to their smaller size and differences in hull shape (Ships of the line had to have wide hulls which increased drag to maximize stability for their multiple gun decks while frigates could be narrower and thus faster hulls having to support only one gun deck). This meant they could intercept and run down small pirate ships, keep up with trade convoys, and maneuver within those convoys to protect them.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the point I was making was that the EITC fleet even at its peak was *not* the equivalent of an actual naval warfleet, and does not support the previously made argument that you could support a full-fledged navy as privateers.

Also, the EITC ships are *not* even frigates -- the "full" military conversion of that hull to a frigate has twice the guns and something like triple the actual broadside of the EITC configuration.

PeaceMaker 03 said:
The East India Trading Company is just further proof that in our common law heritage private ownership of weapons of war beyond crew served weapons is not just an American ideal.
Click to expand...

The East India Trading Company was a company granted special authority and privileges by the Crown. It's not an example of 'normal' private ownership of anything.
 
Last edited:
Here's the transcript from today's oral arguments on the frame and receivers case:

Choice highlights:
Article:
The government said today that cap guns shoot birdshot:
GZY4bVUXUAEuPxY

Article:
Anti-gun lawyers trying to get around the PLCAA hardest hit
GZY8-PAWkAAZupZ
GZY9FdiW8AArbbx


Article:
JUSTICE ALITO: Well, no, I -- I want to stick with the definition of "weapon" for just a second.

GENERAL PRELOGAR: Oh, sure.

JUSTICE ALITO: I'm going to show you. Here's a -- here's a blank pad, and here's a pen, all right? Is this a grocery list?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: I don't think that that's a grocery list, but the reason for that is because there are a lot of things you could use those products for to create something other than a grocery list.

JUSTICE ALITO: All right. If I show --

GENERAL PRELOGAR: And so it's not like they're --

JUSTICE ALITO: -- if I show you -- I put out on a counter some eggs, some chopped-up ham, some chopped-up pepper, and onions, is that a western omelet?

GENERAL PRELOGAR: No, because, again, those items have well-known other uses to become something other than an omelet.

Article:
JUSTICE BARRETT: General Prelogar, I just want to follow up on Justice Alito's question about the omelet.

Would your answer change if you ordered it from HelloFresh and you got a kit, and it was like turkey chili, but all of the ingredients are in the kit?
 
This is a list things Trump can do to improve things for the Second Amendment that has been sent to Donald Trump Jr:
Article:
What can a president do completely unilaterally for gun rights? Here's a list:

- Repeal Bush 41’s assault weapon import ban

- Redefine “armor-piercing ammo” to re-allow banned ammo types

- Redefine 922(r) out of existence

- Bring back kitchen table FFLs, and make a new internet-sales FFL (this is in the 2017 ATF white paper)

- Repeal the photos and fingerprints parts of ATF Rule 41F (an Obama-era rule change), so that trusts don’t need photos and fingerprints for their members. (Careful here: Rule 41F also changed “you need CLEO approval” to “you just need to notify your CLEO, but they can’t stop you” — that was a very important positive change to keep.)

- Expansive allowance for pistol braces. Make it official that anything goes.

- Grant a blanket lawful purposes exemption for gun possession to people in the country on nonimmigrant visas (tourists, students, etc.)

- Machine gun amnesty

- Presumptive approvals for Form 1s and Form 4s. They approve it instantly, and then can claw it back months later or whatever if you get denied. This is how NICS checks already work — if you don’t get a yes/no within 3 days, you can take the gun home and then they just claw it back if you eventually get rejected.

- C&R firearms are defined as any gun more than 50 years old, or *any gun that the ATF deems to be a C&R*. They could add a massive influx of modern guns to the C&R list. Basically all the cool ‘70s–‘90s guns. There’s no reason the Steyr AUG and MP5 and FAL and the like shouldn’t be considered classics. Hell, AKs too.


And a positive 2A win in the west:
Article:
Hunting of big cats in Colorado to remain legal in Colorado as Proposition 127 fails
 
Illinois Assault Weapon and Magazine Ban Ruled Unconstitutional
  • Threadmarks
    • Here's the most surprising win imaginable, Illinois' AWB and magazine ban are ruled unconstitutional:

    Article:
    A thread on our final judgment from Judge McGlynn in our case of FFL-IL v. Pritzker. We represented Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Guns Save Life, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Piasa Armory, and individual plaintiffs in this challenge to the euphemistically named "Protect Illinois Communities Act" (an "assault weapon" and magazine ban).

    Article:
    The "Rorschach test of America's gun debate." I like that.
    Gb5AKLJbwAIZYPz

    Article:
    I am going to skip through the background section as I am sure everyone following this case is well aware.

    Tl;Dr - challenge to Illinois's "assault weapon" ban, magazine capacity limit, and registration requirement.
    Gb5BH5HasAA82k4

    Article:
    Interestingly, Judge McGlynn summarizes not just the SCOTUS 2A cases, but also their dissents, to summarize arguments that have already been rejected.
    Gb5DDUebwAAwYml

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn discusses the absurd standard from the Seventh Circuit he must follow, under which "military arms" aren't "arms" under the Second Amendment.
    Gb5EiQRaAAAbu0Z

    Gb5EtzwawAAFAsv

    Article:
    The 300 rounds per minute claim from a semiautomatic rifle was absurd, and the Seventh Circuit should have realized it was absurd. Judge McGlynn notes that in a footnote.
    Gb5ExurbwAMOAg7

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn summarizes the tortured path we have to follow after Bevis. Hopefully SCOTUS grants cert in Snope and effectively overrules Bevis.
    Gb5F35kbwAMSDuY

    Article:
    I love the constant jabs at all the gaping holes in the Seventh Circuit's poor ruling.
    Gb5GcxkbIAAMFe5

    Article:
    A useful cite in a future body armor ban case.
    Gb5HOTZbwAADVqi

    Article:
    Rare disagreement with McGlynn here. A .50 caliber rifle is clearly a bearable arm. Just because some people would struggle with it just as they might a heavy sword, it doesn't make it not an arm.

    Whether it can be banned as "dangerous and unusual" is a separate question, but it is at least an arm.
    Gb5HcDSbwAAcUdX

    Article:
    Here is what Judge McGlynn concludes constitutes "bearable" in relation to weapons.
    Gb5IAejbwAEIzlp

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn does an admirable job he has been forced to do considering the Seventh Circuit precedent, saying a machinegun is like more indiscriminate weaponry because it is harder to control.
    Gb5Q3xybwAEOjKM

    Article:
    McGlynn uses Col. Tucker to make his point on the automatic fire distinction and why he concludes it is unprotected.

    I don't buy it, I think the maximal and correct Second Amendment interpretation does extend to machine guns as well, especially considering the anti-tyranny purpose. But this is the least-bad argument I have seen on this point. And again, McGlynn has to play within the bounds of Bevis.
    Gb5R_-2bwAMRM1G

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn's definition of "dangerous"
    Gb5S0PjbwAAwz3w

    Article:
    And for "unusual". Sorry guys no chemical weapons in your DGUs.
    Gb5TblEbwAIoeqJ

    Article:
    We are all getting mileage out of Sotomayor's dissent in Cargill. Wonder if she'll realize her strategic error with Snope, if they grant cert.
    Gb5UByFbwAEeiFf

    Article:
    McGlynn's definition of "common use"
    Gb5UjTfaUAAHCT-

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn spends quite a bit of time discussing the differences between military unit armament needs, and civilian self-defense needs.
    Gb5VmzlbwAIQePb

    Article:
    The antigunners are so screwed when we get a judge who gets it instead of an out-of-touch elitist.
    Gb5WzElbwAInuMM

    Article:
    heh
    Gb5XbcobwAAZL7n

    Article:
    This was why it was silly when the State whined about our use of the English survey and NSSF data, because their own experts gave similar numbers on AR-15 circulation.
    Gb5ZOX-bwAEWxHd

    Article:
    After building up each premise masterfully, Judge McGlynn gets to his analysis.
    Gb5a1RHbwAEQNRW

    Article:
    He refuses to limit this case to particular guns like some other courts try to do, instead ruling categorically.
    Gb5bCX5a4AAyDML

    Article:
    As he telegraphed earlier, Judge McGlynn rules that .50 caliber firearms and ammo are not protected.
    Gb5b4j-bIAAdMB4

    Article:
    Similar ruling re grenade launchers.
    Gb5cM4mbwAEU8JC

    Article:
    Shots fired at @NaviGoBoom
    Gb5cuk9aEAA3Cuy

    Article:
    Many on here will argue that their rifles are way better than military-issue ones.
    Gb5dmzCbwAAPOwI

    Article:
    Lots of LARPers will hate this ruling.
    Gb5d-YpbwAkDjpA

    Article:
    Oh I thought we were done with definitions, my bad!
    Gb5eYd7bsAAEEQh

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn explains that even if he is wrong and AR-15s and other semiautomatic weapons are the same as those used by the military, they fall under the Seventh Circuit's "dual use" protection.
    Gb5el-Va4AAL8rT

    Article:
    Looks like the mag cap relief may be limited to magazines up to 30 rounds? We'll see.
    Gb5fl3vbwAYiwP5

    Article:
    This is exactly why we did an amicus brief in Cargill. We knew that the "conversion" argument was the next logical step for the ATF to ban semiauto rifles, and Illinois took that argument for a test drive in this case. Thankfully, the Court didn't buy it.
    Gb5gJYcagAAAwvZ

    Article:
    Finally, on page 117, Judge McGlynn concludes that the banned firearms are "arms" for purposes of the Second Amendment, except for .50 caliber guns, belt-fed guns, and grenade launchers.
    Gb5g3i9bwAEKAkB

    Gb5hE6_bwAIKZLk

    Article:
    I love McGlynn's section reciting the reasons for the adoption of the Bill of Rights, good read.
    Gb5jKSDbwAE1Agc

    Article:
    Ya, excluding massacres of Native Americans was certainly a choice.
    Gb5noBubwAICH1N

    Article:
    You're welcome homies.
    Gb5oIOjbYAAZ8iv

    Article:
    The lawyer who wrote that line is very handsome and smart, I'm told.
    Gb5oUNLbwAY_I9w

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn says the Seventh Circuit's historical analogies are weak. We agree, of course. They differ often in both the "how" and the "why".
    Gb5o_jNbwAML6xg

    Article:
    He emphasizes how few of the over 200 historical laws cited actually banned the sale or possession of weapons.
    Gb5sKZVbwAAszMp

    Article:
    Judge McGlynn criticizes the rulings of several circuit courts as not applying Bruen in good faith (and he is right)
    Gb5tpVybQAA7Wha

    Article:
    Wow, now that is a barely-veiled shot across the bow. Love it.
    Gb5t_5VbwAUPU7Q

    Article:
    Now that's a close. A very strong and thorough opinion from Judge McGlynn which makes it hard for the Seventh Circuit to overturn without looking like they have their thumb on the scale in favor of the government.
    Gb5w3H9bwAI82wD

    Article:
    The actual operative text of the ruling. I know the 30 day stay is frustrating, but it is customary in this situation. And even if he hadn't stayed it, the Seventh Circuit would have. He's saving us from wasting time on emergency briefing.
    Gb5xMd8bwAUGzOk

    Gb5xQa8aMAAH6il

    Article:
    An appeal is not only inevitable, it has already happened, as Illinois submitted its Notice of Appeal while I was reading through this ruling.

    So what are our chances? Better than you may think. While I am unsure if we get the same panel as last time, even if we do, one of the judges (Judge Wood) retired earlier this year. She had ruled against us. So that panel is now 1-1, and whoever we draw would be the decider.

    If we don't get the same panel, then we roll the dice on a new one.

    Hopefully, SCOTUS gives us some clear guidance in the meantime by granting cert in Snope. Exciting times!

    It's not a perfect victory for the 2nd Amendment, since the judge is willing to mark things like .50 cal as not arms protected by the 2A, but people are definitely going to fight about that.

    Appeal is inevitable, but it gives the 2A a huge win that can help move the needle with SCOTUS.
     
  • Threadmarks
    • bullethead said:
    It's not a perfect victory for the 2nd Amendment, since the judge is willing to mark things like .50 cal as not arms protected by the 2A, but people are definitely going to fight about that.
    Click to expand...

    Funny .50 cal is militarily useful and currently being issued by the Army and other services.

    US v. Miller SCOTUS said 2A protects only militarily useful arms. Why that seams clear enough?

    Makes you wonder if the judge did any homework for this case.
     
    PeaceMaker 03 said:
    Funny .50 cal is militarily useful and currently being issued by the Army and other services.

    US v. Miller SCOTUS said 2A protects only militarily useful arms. Why that seams clear enough?

    Makes you wonder if the judge did any homework for this case.
    Click to expand...
    Hey, we need to take any W we can get out of that circuit.

    The 2A advocates are gonna have plenty of ammo to work with when it comes to Miller and this case if it gets up to SCOTUS.
     
    Bacle said:


    Trump is backing nation wide concealed carry reciprocity.
    Click to expand...

    It's not my favorite first-priority just because I don't go most of the places reciprocity would help me with and I really, really want a suppressor on one of my guns without having to hoop-jump and pay a $200 surcharge so the Hearing Protection Act/removal of suppressors from the NFA (or, in real pipe-dream world, wholesale axing of the NFA itself)...That said, it's probably also the most achievable goal and, much like with requiring federal recognition of out-of-state homosexual marriages by state's that didn't allow that, reciprocity might have the best 'snowball' impact on carry laws across the country (though residency requirements in most states will probably hold that up a bit, but...eh, imperfect analogy).
     
    Reader mode
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    Back
    Top