Replies

"Of course, full autos aren’t exactly common "

I beg to differ! Weapons with burst and/or full auto firing capability are the NORM when state militia units get together to train.

I was referring to full autos in civilian hands - because any suit to overturn the '86 ban is moot as applies to a "state militia" or the state's National Guard. Those are governmental entities, and I'd sincerely doubt that the people in these organizations are training with their own personal weapons.

Besides, if a state's militia is also the National Guard unit for that state, it can be federalized at the stroke of the President's pen. Ask Rudy Perpich, former guv of Minnesota, who sued to prevent the MN NG from going on manuevers to Central America. In 1990 the Supreme Court put the old collective-rights canard of "the National Guard IS the militia" into its well-earned grave, decapitated, with several wooden stakes through the heart and a generous dose of silver bullets - it was a unanimous decision.

I know your heart is in the right place, but please don't claim that full autos are common because of state militias, even if they are, in fact, common there. Try taking one of those guns home and see what happens - it would not only be theft of government property, but you'd probably be in violation of the NFA and the '86 FOPA for transferring a full auto without a tax stamp. I do understand where you're coming from - you're arguing that full autos are common, therefore they can't be limited according to what Scalia said in Heller - but they aren't common where they matter for a court case to overturn the '86 ban...in the hands of civilians. Of course, the only reason is because of unconstitutional laws - what buyer of an AR or AR clone wouldn't pay an additional $100 or so for "Da Switch?" If there was no NFA and no '86 ban, there'd be at least 5 million full autos (or select fire weapons, which amounts to the same thing in a legal sense) in civilian hands, maybe more.

We shouldn’t get all wrapped around the axle of the term “common.”

We now have a “Miller Test” with respect to firearms and the Second Amendment. The test goes like this: “Does said firearm have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia?”

If the answer is “Yes,” then the weapon is encompassed by the Second Amendment.

So that means that M-16s are covered, short-barrel shotguns (”breaching guns,” “combat shotguns”) are covered, 20mm anti-tank rifles are covered, etc.

What’s doesn’t have such a relationship? Perhaps saps, brass knuckles, slungshots... What’s a “dangerous and unusual” weapon? Perhaps chemical, biological, or nuclear arms, JDAMs, or autonomous air-defense guns...

That's true, but AR-15s are common in civilian hands, and the price of a legal happy switch demonstrates that they would be common if not for the ban.

I think the ban on full autos is much more vulnerable than is commonly believed. Consider what the Appeals Court ruling, just affirmed by the Supreme Court, had to say:

Once it is determined—as we have done—that handguns are “Arms” referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not open to the District to ban them.

Scalia spoke directly of the issue, and wound up saying this:

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause..... But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

He was talking about other modern weapons, but the only "modern development" which causes gun shops to sell AR-15's to us and full auto versions of the same gun to the government is the ban on post '86 machine guns.

I know your heart is in the right place, but please don't claim that full autos are common because of state militias, even if they are, in fact, common there.

How common is common?

If every legally available one is in private hands, with the exception of relatively small dealer inventories which sell at prices vastly above the world market, solely because of regulation, the argumant can be made that they are as common as is possible under current regulations, and that demand exceeds supply.

The very (inflated) sale price of a currently transferrable arm makes the case that they would be more common were they available, and especially if the price were lower.

As you state: "If there was no NFA and no '86 ban, there'd be at least 5 million full autos (or select fire weapons, which amounts to the same thing in a legal sense) in civilian hands, maybe more."