Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Page Armory » 50 Cal
Site Notices
1/22/2020 12:12:56 PM
Posted: 9/12/2009 5:03:59 PM EST
I attended a 2nd ammendment symposium at the Chicago campus of NW University Law School. It was an all day affair discussing the Heller case and various aspects of 2nd amendment law. It was sponsored by the Federalists Society and the NRA ILA. It was VERY informative. One of the discussions
was on what "Arms" are protected by the 2nd amendment. I came away with the distinct impression that most scholars, on both sides of the issue do not think the 50 BMG would survive a court test on constitutional grounds.
As a member of the firearms fraternity for almost 40 years, there is no one more passionate about gun right than myself. I came away feeling that gun rights are settled law within the limits set by the SCOTUS. Most on the panels were 2nd Amendment advocates. One law professor was a counsel for the Brady campaign and several found fault with Scalia's ruling. All said they agree that the gun heritage in the USA is a fundamental part of our society supported by a majority of Americans but is subject to reasonable controls. The 50 BMG was singled out more than once as not falling within the the legal definition of a personal firearm protected by the constitution. Whether Congress goes after it was anyone's guess. That is a political decision I hope does not come to pass.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 5:37:13 PM EST
Well first I must say that I am no legal beagle. I think that this little conference had done nothing positive for the 50 cal shooters. And I wonder on what ground this group thinks that ownership of a 50 BMG is not legal? What are they thinking? That we should own only little 22 rimfire rifles? Even those of the continental army had better rifles than that. And I am sure that if 50 BMG were available back then that they would have been shooting the officers off of their horses at a half of a mile if they could. Really some of the hair brained reasons to ban this or that rifle is just because of hyper boil. Its Black and looks dangerous. Is really not a logical reason to ban a weapon. Noticed that of late the 50 BMG is being labels a sniper rifle. Well I suppose so is my bolt action 5 round box mag 30-06 if I put a 32 power scope. But so it the AR-15 and the .338 Lapua mag. And I am sure the squirrels think that if I put a 12 power scope on my 10-22 is a sniper rifle also..

All I ask is to be left alone so I can shoot at paper targets at 600 yrds and one day maybe if I am good, 1000 yrds. I dont want to bother anyone and I just wish others would leave me alone while I safely shoot my rifles and have fun trying to out do my best target.

Now here is a warning to anyone who wants to deny my right as I see it to go out and target practice at the range. There is going to come a day when people of like mind are going to get tired of others telling them that they are evil because they own this or that. That they smoke or spank a disobedient child (notice I said spank not whomp them). One day, those who wish to oppress us, to lord over us so that they may set themselves up as our rulers. Are going to wake up to a whole lot of angry people. We will once again need to throw off the yoke of oppression as our forefathers did back in 1770s. But this time, the enemy will not talk funny like the brits did. This time, the enemy might be some guy down the street or next door. It will be a sad day for sure, but so is all of this stupid talk about my right and rifle might be viewed as being illegal or bad or evil. Frankly I am getting tired of all of this talk about me being a criminal. This might come down to what they call a self for filling prophecy.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 5:50:29 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2009 5:50:40 PM EST by STRIKE504]
If they can ban .50 BMG they can ban ANYTHING. Does simple ownership imply intent? Gun laws should not be based on fear mongering, murder is already illegal.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 5:55:37 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 6:04:59 PM EST
An argument allowing the banning of the 50BMG is a foot in the door for an argument to ban every other "sniper rifle" out there.

If nobody can see that then they have blinders on or they are flatly not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment. Yes, the Fudds will finally get motivated and fight for their sporting/hunting rifles but damn it if it should ever be allowed to get to that point.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 6:18:20 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/12/2009 6:57:10 PM EST by native]
Trying to reason with sheeple is not something most of us have patience for, myself included.
I can appreciate you trying to educate and learn yourself with what "scholars" are putting forth.
No surprises here keep your powder DRY.


I'll go with what Ted said and spend the rest of the DAY shooting this rocket .50 BMG.

Link Posted: 9/12/2009 6:22:13 PM EST
The Founders weren't protecting their muskets, they were protecting their cannons. The 2nd has already been narrowed too far.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 6:49:29 PM EST
This was NOT the NRA stating this view or members of the Federalists Society, these were constitutional scholars of all persuasions . If you read Heller "in common use at the time" is used to describe the allowed arms. Hand guns, specifically. Rifles, including AR style and shot guns are the arms of choice at this time. It will be a political decision by our elected officials, we need to be active and aware of the possibilities confronting us.

I have been talking to like minded folks for years and never heard the legal detail I heard at this meeting. These are the arguments being made in court cases pertaining to gun rights. I was amazed how few gun owners were there. We blow off steam with each other when we should all be going to organized events like this. I could not get one of my shooting buds to go with me. I will never miss another one.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 7:15:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By Jetlag:
The Founders weren't protecting their muskets, they were protecting their cannons. The 2nd has already been narrowed too far.


+100000000000000000000

Even as late as the civil war the army often had to borrow cannon from civilians to use in battle... and that is the way things are supposed to be today.

The second amendment is NOT subject to ANY restrictions. "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Regardless of the ramblings of any paid off elitist judges, lawyers or anyone else. The founders are on record many times on the subject, and even nukes are protected under the 2nd amendment.

Period. No argument can ever stand up against that fact, unless its in a kangaroo "court" that doesn't use reality for its "reasoning".

Anyone who disagrees is a closet enemy of the constitution at best and an open one at worst.

Those of you who want to pretend things are otherwise can get bent. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and the others meant for civilians to be equally armed - no BETTER armed than the federal government.

It's too bad that so many people are fooled by the bullshit put out by so many supposed "supporters" of the 2nd amendment today who are really wolves in sheeps clothing.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 7:48:07 PM EST
You need to dial in your meds. It was not arguing from your position that got us a win last years. It's reasoned legal presentation of the facts." FUCK YOU
come and get me, the constitution says I can own nukes" is not going to get us anywhere. If you want to keep your Barrett get smart, not irrational.
Link Posted: 9/12/2009 8:16:41 PM EST
Originally Posted By LILGUY:
This was NOT the NRA stating this view or members of the Federalists Society, these were constitutional scholars of all persuasions . If you read Heller "in common use at the time" is used to describe the allowed arms. Hand guns, specifically. Rifles, including AR style and shot guns are the arms of choice at this time. It will be a political decision by our elected officials, we need to be active and aware of the possibilities confronting us.

I have been talking to like minded folks for years and never heard the legal detail I heard at this meeting. These are the arguments being made in court cases pertaining to gun rights. I was amazed how few gun owners were there. We blow off steam with each other when we should all be going to organized events like this. I could not get one of my shooting buds to go with me. I will never miss another one.



The fact that our "rights" are defined by political decisions by elected officials is not a revelation but I can appreciate your enthusiasm for the fight and your wanting to hear and understand the "legal details"..
I'm NOT surprised at all that "few gun owners" were in attendance. Gun owners new and old have made their voice with their pocket books this last year because they are "aware of the possibilities confronting us".
Many/most don't need/want or have the patience for listening to "constitutional scholars" tell you what we already know.

There are the haves and the have not's in this world.
The have not's want your- Guns/Property/Rights = Power....don't let the legal details cloud your view

I hate to come across like this and I truly hope you enjoy your next "organized event"
Likewise I hope your shooting buddy is "active" possibly shooting or working his ass off for his next purchase at making his voice clear.


Link Posted: 9/13/2009 3:50:42 PM EST
All I can say is "From my cold dead hands."
Link Posted: 9/13/2009 8:04:39 PM EST
It is sad that the true reasoning for the "Bill of Rights" has been lost through countless "rationalization" The 2A is part of the Ten that protect the rights of the citizen from their own government. It is meant to equalize power between the People and Governement so the latter with a few elites in power will not be able to enslave the general population. If the Government will use nukes to enslave its people, then 2A requires the People to have the same equal power to balance the power.

To win this argument, it really needs to start in school. To teach our young why before the Constituation was signed, the Bill of Rights were first ratified.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 3:27:48 AM EST
I agree and I hope all of you who back slap one another and yell "FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS".also are deeply involved in the political debate, local and national, that is carried on at various levels of gov't. That's where we will win or loose this debate.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 5:17:05 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 9:24:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/14/2009 9:28:45 AM EST by JimM44]
I DO take exception that the NRA was fighing the Assult Weapons Ban because during the debate here in the Galveston area they were backing the rep supporting the ban Jack Brooks who went on to vote for it.

When at an NRA meeting in Beaumont during the 1994 election season this was brought up on the floor by the angry people in attanedance they simply said, "Well we won't back anyone in this race", so they didn't back the pro-gun guy and he did win without their help.

I'm talking about Steve Stockman, he won without the NRA with grassroot efforts after the ban passed.

I am an NRA Endowment Life member because they do fight some which is better than nothing but they are VERY selective and don't fight for much.

Edit: And just to make sure they DID sell us out on the Assult Weapons Ban by supporting the folks voting for it and continued to support them even for re-election against the pro-gun choice, they did in MY District, I saw it with my own eyes and heard their reps live with my own ears TRY and sell us out.

We voted against the NRA to get Jack Brooks out and Steve Stockman in and the NRA after being pushed simply dropped their endorsement of Brooks but never got behind Stockman.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 3:40:42 PM EST
You can argue historical details of the NRA all day long, but the plain facts of the matter are that the majority of the NRA doesn't give a tinker's damn about real weaponry, of the kind that has significant military utility. I guarantee that less than 1 in a 1000 citizens know that MANPADs are now a federally banned form of weapon, despite their clear military purpose. The majority opinion in Heller admitted that the test for a weapon was its suitability for war, and then turned around and ignored their own logic. Hell will freeze over before the Supreme Court will admit that something like an RPG-7 or a 40mm grenade is the sort of weapon a militia would use (and thus, should be legal to possess and use by the populace).

Fact is, the only people who care are the people who read Small Arms Review, and their brethren. The NRA couldn't give two shits about the right to bear recoilless rifles-and they'd trade away that right in a heartbeat if they thought it was necessary in order to protect their hunting rifles and handguns. Groups like the NFATCA exist, and actually support the Second Amendment as it really means through actions and intent rather than words, but they have no Influence, no Money, and therefore no Power.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:13:48 PM EST

For Frack's sake the conference was held in Chicago, IL.

/rant on/

I've been involved in activism and education for a long, long time. I'm tired of my rights being sold out in the name of compromise and middle ground by the people who are supposed to be representing our interests. Every time someone brings up a gun bill and then some "reasonable compromise" is achieved we are the only ones who lose. I would rather have some really horrific bills pass so people would wake the fuck up and start politically gang-raping the politicians that support them.

I'm tired of defending what's been left to us. We're ready to take back the rights that have been stolen. I want the 1986 FOPA that forever closed the market for new Title 2 automatic weapons repealed. I want silencers removed from the 1934 NFA (that was about poaching, not crime anyway).

Gun control is real simple: "Give up your guns or we will take your freedom, your property and even your life." That's all it is.

/rant off/

Carry on. These are not the droids you are looking for.
Link Posted: 9/14/2009 4:28:25 PM EST
Originally Posted By LILGUY:
You need to dial in your meds. It was not arguing from your position that got us a win last years. It's reasoned legal presentation of the facts." FUCK YOU
come and get me, the constitution says I can own nukes" is not going to get us anywhere. If you want to keep your Barrett get smart, not irrational.


My sig line Peaches -
Link Posted: 9/18/2009 3:57:45 AM EST
The argument the founders never intended for that kind of fire power for protection or what ever they were spouting off is propostours! The ball they used in their muskets was was bigger than .50! LOL I think your brady bunch man on the pannel had better re-evaluate his position!
Page Armory » 50 Cal
Top Top