Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Axenolith
From my not super extensive reading of law and the framers intent

I understand that part. Same here.

So, theoretically as an un-infringed right, you should be able to have a select fire weapon and it would seem logical that you could also have an attachment like a grenade launcher.

Several years ago in England, a man was killed by a weapon disguised as an umbrella that injected a poison pellet into him. The purpose of such a weapon is murder, assassination. It's not an infantry weapon. Such a weapon has no moral purpose, as far as I know, in society. Is such a weapon covered by “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”?

And what about the "bear" part? Is a law an infringement when the law makes it a crime to bear a select fire weapon on or in someone's property if that someone forbids it? What if it's public property and the public, as the ultimate owners of public property and by means of popular vote, vote for a law forbidding the bearing of select fire weapons on public property?

It would not apply to crew served weapons mainly from the fact that said weapons are generally not individually portable.

Well, the "bear" part might not apply for practical reasons, although six people might be able to bear a machine gun or a cannon in the same way six people bear a casket. But what about the "keep" part? According to the Constitution (the body itself, not the amendments), Congress has the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Such letters were granted to ship captains or owners so that they could in effect conduct wartime operations during wartime. It seems to me that the clear implication is that crew served weapons, that is cannon, could be kept.

24 posted on 02/25/2013 7:53:38 PM PST by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: KrisKrinkle
Several years ago in England, a man was killed by a weapon disguised as an umbrella that injected a poison pellet into him. The purpose of such a weapon is murder, assassination. It's not an infantry weapon. Such a weapon has no moral purpose, as far as I know, in society. Is such a weapon covered by “The right of the people to keep and bear arms”?

I remember that, it was during the cold war, he was a Bulgarian dissident I believe. I do not believe that under a strict interpretation it would be liberally allowed. Hypothetically, it could be "permitted", but it is not a common individually borne weapon. Even if we hypothesize a world where for some reason war became so onerously dangerous or economically infeasible that stealthy "assassination wars" took place on a frequent and large scale, the weapons involved would mainly be individually offensive in nature and probably regulated by the state.

And what about the "bear" part? Is a law an infringement when the law makes it a crime to bear a select fire weapon on or in someone's property if that someone forbids it? What if it's public property and the public, as the ultimate owners of public property and by means of popular vote, vote for a law forbidding the bearing of select fire weapons on public property?

While I see no reasoning that prohibits an individual from barring armed folks in their premise it is for the most part irrational on their part, save maybe a bar or a gaming establishment and even then I think that could be managed privately.
I do see it as being legal for the local populace to bar weapons from certain public buildings, but not open air places like "streets and sidewalks. Additionally, public buildings that bar responsible personal weapons bearers their arms should be strictly liable financially for their medical care and familial income replacement (in case of death) in the event their are subsequently killed or injured within the building through assault.

Well, the "bear" part might not apply for practical reasons, although six people might be able to bear a machine gun or a cannon in the same way six people bear a casket. But what about the "keep" part? According to the Constitution (the body itself, not the amendments), Congress has the power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Such letters were granted to ship captains or owners so that they could in effect conduct wartime operations during wartime. It seems to me that the clear implication is that crew served weapons, that is cannon, could be kept.

I agree with that, particularly in the context of responsible patriots, though in today's age we might need to leave that further down the road. Politicians obviously regulated the larger scale destructive devices for their own protection. Politicians could give 2 craps for citizens for the most part. I personally think their wholesale frenzy to regulate self loading rifles is due in part to their subconscious realization that they will have royally screwed the Republic, possibly to its end, in the very near future and they'd like to minimize the citizen pay-back seekers in the aftermath...

28 posted on 02/26/2013 5:56:26 PM PST by Axenolith (Government blows, and that which governs least, blows least...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson