David Newton: Shag

“Assault weapons” are by definition automatic weapons.” is not correct. Assault RIFLES are by definition automatic weapons – “Assault weapons” are universally SEMI-automatic weapons that merely look like automatic weapons.
Sorry, but there is no “spray” of bullets to be concerned about.

I am writing to inform you that the links I provided in my comment (Dan Goodman December 31, 2009 7:33pm), two entries up, no longer work. The new locations for them are:

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=327

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=331

____________

There is also the following which I think would be appropriate. It relates to the Brief filed by the Petitioners in McDonald v. City of Chicago. However, what is written there, applies in substance, to the Brief filed by Cato.

Comment on Petitioner’s Brief: McDonald v. City of Chicago

http://www.australia.to/2010/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=91&Itemid=126

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/136777

____________

I wish to state that the Supreme court, in the Slaughterhouse Cases, held that because of the Fourteenth Amendment there were now two separate and distinct citizens under the Constitution of the United States; a citizen of the United States, under the Fourteenth Amendment and a citizen of the several States, under Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 [FOOTNOTE]:

    “We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this Amendment (the 14th Amendment) of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section (first section, second clause), which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several states. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs, rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 74.

And:

    “In the Constitution of the United States, which superseded the Articles of Confederation, the corresponding provision is found in section two of the fourth article, in the following words: ‘The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens OF the several States.’ ” 83 U.S. 36 (1873), page 75.

The last was later reaffirmed in Cole v. Cunningham:

    “The intention of section 2, Article IV (of the Constitution), was to confer on the citizens of the several States a general citizenship.” Cole v. Cunningham: 133 U.S. 107, 113-114 (1890).

The privileges and immunities of citizens of the several states are those described by Corfield, cited in the Slaughterhouse Cases. This is reaffirmed in Hodges v. United States:

    “In the Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 76, in defining the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States, this is quoted from the opinion of Mr. Justice Washington in Corfield v. Coryell, 4 Wash. Cir. Ct. 371, 380.” Hodges v. United States: 203 U.S. 1, at 15 (1906).

So there are now two citizens under the Constitution of the United States. One needs to find out information on both. For a citizen of the United States that is easy. Just about anywhere. For a citizen of the several States one will have to begin here:

http://citizenoftheseveralstates.webs.com/index.htm

____________

FOOTNOTE

The Effects of the Fourteenth Amendment on the Constitution of the United States

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=15882

Also,

A Look At Corfield (On Citizenship)

http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16868

____

Shag from Brookline: Here’s a common headline of a short time ago:“The US Army major who carried out the Fort Hood massacre sprayed more than 100 rounds at his comrades using a gun nicknamed the ‘cop killer.’”

Common headlines don’t shed much light. The reports I read indicated that Maj. Hasan didn’t “spray” anything at anyone. He reportedly aimed quite deliberately with a laser sighted pistol (Laser sights? Oh noes! Assault Flashlights!). It is also useful to determine the source of the “cop killer pistol” appellation. It certainly did not get the nickname because it has been used in a large number of police fatalities.

The Five-Seven, without armor piercing ammo, is really nothing special. Ballistically speaking, it isn’t much more than a glorified .22 magnum rimfire. Lethal? Sure, but it wouldn’t be my choice of weapon to bring to a gunfight. But then, Maj. Hasan is alleged to have sought unarmed, and unarmored, targets.

Joe: Bingham said three times in 1866 that “due process” was the same process found under chapter 39 of the charta.

So? What does this mean? Some thought it meant that we had certain natural rights that no lawful government could violation, so by definition could not pass with “due process of law.”

Conclusionary citations of Bingham without proper context is far from as helpful to the rest of us than it seems to be to you.

Bingham: “The gentleman read from the Magna Charta of England, that ‘no freeman shall be taken or disseized,’ &c., ‘but by the judgment of his peers and the law of the land;’ forgetful of the fact that the words ‘no freeman’ were words of limitation, and limited this great charter at the time it was adopted to one half the population of England, and forgetful also that these words of limitation were swept away by the Constitution of the United States, in which it is declared that ‘no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.’”

There is your proper Bingham context.

“The real question about the Fort Hood killings is how soldiers at an Army base could be so defenseless against a single person with a couple of handguns.”

is to permit/require soldiers to carry arms, either openly or concealed, at all times while on an Army base. And perhaps this should be extended to all other places, public and private, in America, for all citizens/residents.

“The US Army major who carried out the Fort Hood massacre sprayed more than 100 rounds at his comrades using a gun nicknamed the ‘cop killer.’”

Shag, this is just a typical example of terminology favored by anti-gun propagandists being picked up by the media and used as the king’s English. The real question about the Fort Hood killings is how soldiers at an Army base could be so defenseless against a single person with a couple of handguns.

Assault weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully-automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons –anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun– can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.

- Josh Sugarmann

“The US Army major who carried out the Fort Hood massacre sprayed more than 100 rounds at his comrades using a gun nicknamed the ‘cop killer.’”

No, that wasn’t a garden hose. Query whether “massacre = slaughterhouse”? Query whether the “cop killer” gun is included in the description of assault weapons?

Would firing an assault weapon in a crowded theatre in self-defense be okay under the Second Amendment?

The elements of self-defense have changed over the years. How does originalism of the Second Amendment address this?

Are there any places outside of the home that might impose limitations on the use of self-defense via the Second Amendment? (Court houses, stadia, Congress, hospitals, public events, etc?)

Allan Walstad:
…and was apparently invented by anti-gun propagandists for propaganda purposes.

Bingo. That’s exactly why it should not be used when talking about firearms. It is also why the knowledge about firearms of anyone who does use it should be seriously called into question.

“Assault weapon” is a term which is imprecise and with no rational basis in law…

…and was apparently invented by anti-gun propagandists for propaganda purposes.

SeaDrive:
Without a doubt, there is no unanimity on the terminology. I think David Newton must be in the substantial sector of the pro-RKBA community that invests some mythic importance to stamping out “erroneous” usages. So far as I know, the term “automatic rifle” is not is common use. Interpreted at face value, it would mean something included under the common term “machine gun”, and regulated by Federal law. “Assault rifle” is commonly applied to semi-automatic rifles, even those that would never be used by a military force. This usage was written into law by the AWB. Although many, probably including Mr. Newton, would argue that an “assault weapon” banned by, e.g. a state AWB is not correctly called an assault rifle, the distinction is too fine to stand. A rifle that is a banned assault weapon is going to called an assault rifle.I suspect the suggestion that an assault rifle is less dangerous than a handgun arises from the observation that shooters are more accurate with a shoulder-fired weapon than with a handgun. This proposition requires evidence. At best, it’s a huge over-simplification.

As I mentioned in the post just before the one I am quoting, I did realise that I had slightly mis-spoken concerning “assault weapons” vs “assault rifles”. I want to stamp out incorrect usages because they distort language and lead to misunderstandings.

A good non-firearms-related example would be stating something is “very unique”. This is complete nonsense as something unique is by definition one of a kind and cannot have a descriptor such as very applied to it. It is, however, correct to say something is nearly unique which would mean something that is not unique but is so low in numbers as to very closely approach unique status. Very unique or other similar nonsense is commonly encountered in every day conversation and is based on a fundamental misapprehension of the meaning of unique.

Similarly the use of the term “assault weapon” describes a nebulous and poorly defined concept. Since assault weapon was defined, somewhat, by the 1994 legislation it is not entirely vacuous as a term. However it was deliberately coined to muddy the waters and confuse people. Semi-automatic weapons, with flash suppressors, bayonet lugs and whatever other characteristics the 1994 legislation used are not more dangerous than semi-automatic weapons without those features. They just seem more “dangerous” to the average person in the street.

It should also be well remembered that the law turns on precise definitions and that cases are distinguished on the facts for sometimes seemingly comparatively small reasons. For example in Fisher v Bell in the UK under section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 it was illegal to “offer” flick knives for sale. A prosecution was bought against a shop for displaying a flick knife in the window. Both the court of original jurisdiction and the Court of Appeal dismissed the case on the grounds that under contract law an “offer” is more than simply displaying an article with a price tag on it. Had the statute included language about “exposing for sale” then things would have been very different.

To the average man in the street simply displaying an article with a price tag is an “offer”. Under contract law it is an “invitation to treat” which is a very, very different thing. To the average man in the street the terms “assault weapon” and “assault rifle” might mean the same thing due to the Brady Campaign et al. Under firearms law they may well be very different things, and since the 1994 act defined “assault weapons” as being semi-automatic and “assault rifles” are generally understood either be or to include automatic weapons then the chances of the terms being distinguished in a court opinion are relatively high.

Statutes which are imprecise are badly drafted and lead to bad court cases. It is possible to be very broad in application and yet very precise in language. “Assault weapon” is a term which is imprecise and with no rational basis in law other than being enacted to make people feel better. Making people feel better is not a good basis for a statute. For a prime example of this see the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 in the UK.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html

I have no idea what Mr. Aldridge is trying to prove.

Then perhaps you shouldn’t try to argue with him?

So? What does this mean? Some thought it meant that we had certain natural rights that no lawful government could violate, so by definition could not pass with “due process of law.” Such as freedom from slavery. This idea was even cited in the Republican platform.

Conclusionary citations of Bingham without proper context is far from as helpful to the rest of us than it seems to be to you.

[Sorry for the duplicate -- couldn't edit the former comment properly.]

So? What does this mean? Some thought it meant that we had certain natural rights that no lawful government could violation, so by definition could not pass with “due process of law.”

Conclusionary citations of Bingham without proper context is far from as helpful to the rest of us than it seems to be to you.

As to assault weapons posing more of a threat than handguns, assuming they are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles, a lot of people, including innocents, may get injured by the spray of bullets.

Huh?

I doubt anyone thinks assault weapons, however defined, are less deadly than handguns. Whether a semi-automatic rifle is more dangerous to innocents than a semi-automatic handgun is moot. Handguns are more difficult to aim, but rifles (in general) have more powerful ammunition. In fact, rifles are used in crime much more rarely than guns, so the argument is irrelevent.

“Assault weapons” are by definition automatic weapons.

Without a doubt, there is no unanimity on the terminology. I think David Newton must be in the substantial sector of the pro-RKBA community that invests some mythic importance to stamping out “erroneous” usages.

So far as I know, the term “automatic rifle” is not is common use. Interpreted at face value, it would mean something included under the common term “machine gun”, and regulated by Federal law.

“Assault rifle” is commonly applied to semi-automatic rifles, even those that would never be used by a military force. This usage was written into law by the AWB. Although many, probably including Mr. Newton, would argue that an “assault weapon” banned by, e.g. a state AWB is not correctly called an assault rifle, the distinction is too fine to stand. A rifle that is a banned assault weapon is going to called an assault rifle.

I suspect the suggestion that an assault rifle is less dangerous than a handgun arises from the observation that shooters are more accurate with a shoulder-fired weapon than with a handgun. This proposition requires evidence. At best, it’s a huge over-simplification.

My point about the use of the term being a classic smear tactic certainly still stands, and anybody who uses the term in an article to describe firearms in the sense of being “more dangerous” has shown themselves to be incredibly biased and ignorant.

Shag from Brookline: I refer you to Mr. Johnson’s article. He makes the point that assault weapons, as he defines and distinguishes them from automatic rifles, are better in providing self-defense to an individual as opposed to handguns and automatic rifles, as assault weapons are easier to use and are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles.

Let me see if I’m following you. “Overruling the Slaughterhouse cases to accommodate the expansion of Heller may result in the creation of slaughterhouses,” because “assault weapons may become commonplace,” and assault weapons “are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles.”

Despite its dubious origin, the assault weapon designation is now a fixture in the gun-control debate. So while there are disagreements about what, if anything, constitutes an assault weapon, I will use the 1994 ban classifications to talk about them here. Under that legislation, assault weapons are principally semiautomatic rifles, with features like pistol grips, folding stocks, and bayonet lugs, that feed ammunition through a detachable box magazine (DBM).

I agree with Justice Thomas, as quoted by Johnson:

Prior to 1989, the term “assault weapon” did not exist in the lexicon of firearms. It is a political term, developed by anti-gun publicists to expand the category of “assault rifles” so as to allow an attack on as many additional firearms as possible on the basis of undefined “evil” appearance.

So what’s Shag’s point?

As to assault weapons posing more of a threat than handguns, assuming they are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles, a lot of people, including innocents, may get injured by the spray of bullets.

Right, I’m sure lots of folks will mistake them for garden hoses. What “spray” are you talking about? The gun fires a round each time you pull the trigger. So do many guns not labeled as “assault weapons” by the anti-gun propagandists. Yes it’s possible for someone to get shot accidentally. So what? All sorts of useful things have dangers.

…surely some arms enthusiasts may seek Second Amendment rights with no limits.

NO limits? Even First Amendment rights are not without limitation (“fire!” in a theater, etc.) Virtually all 2A supporters simply want 2A treated as a serious individual right in the same way as other rights are already.

Shag from Brookline: Gray asks:“Can you please describe for us the difference between an assault weapon and an automatic rifle? Further, can you elaborate on why “assault weapons” pose more of a threat than handguns?”I refer you to Mr. Johnson’s article.He makes the point that assault weapons, as he defines and distinguishes them from automatic rifles, are better in providing self-defense to an individual as opposed to handguns and automatic rifles, as assault weapons are easier to use and are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles.Certain skills and strengths are required, according to Mr. Johnson, for using handguns and automatic rifles.I am not saying that I agree with Mr. Johnson, but with the incorporation of the Second Amendment, surely some arms enthusiasts may seek Second Amendment rights with no limits.As to assault weapons posing more of a threat than handguns, assuming they are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles, a lot of people, including innocents, may get injured by the spray of bullets.

The person making that distinction does not know what they are talking about. “Assault weapons” are by definition automatic weapons. Since they do not know about that meaning then anything else they have to say on the subject is at the very least suspect. Wrongly defining “assault weapons” is a classic smear tactic of some anti-gun campaigners.

The theory of substantive due process was well understood and generally accepted at the time of the Amendment’s ratification.

That is a falsehood. Bingham never believed such a thing. An act of congress in 1868 proves this to be false.

Bingham said three times in 1866 that “due process” was the same process found under chapter 39 of the charta.

“Can you please describe for us the difference between an assault weapon and an automatic rifle? Further, can you elaborate on why “assault weapons” pose more of a threat than handguns?”

I refer you to Mr. Johnson’s article. He makes the point that assault weapons, as he defines and distinguishes them from automatic rifles, are better in providing self-defense to an individual as opposed to handguns and automatic rifles, as assault weapons are easier to use and are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles. Certain skills and strengths are required, according to Mr. Johnson, for using handguns and automatic rifles. I am not saying that I agree with Mr. Johnson, but with the incorporation of the Second Amendment, surely some arms enthusiasts may seek Second Amendment rights with no limits.

As to assault weapons posing more of a threat than handguns, assuming they are less deadly than handguns and automatic rifles, a lot of people, including innocents, may get injured by the spray of bullets.

This nationalist conception of the Constitution was widely accepted at the time of ratification, but beginning in 1798 with the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and again during the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, southern political leaders began to formulate a competing, states’ rights theory of the Constitution.

So it was just those damned Southerners (Madison and Jefferson in 1798, by the way)? Not quite. According to Wikipedia, the Massachusetts general court had this to say about a trade embargo passed in 1813:

A power to regulate commerce is abused, when employed to destroy it; and a manifest and voluntary abuse of power sanctions the right of resistance, as much as a direct and palpable usurpation. The sovereignty reserved to the states, was reserved to protect the citizens from acts of violence by the United States, as well as for purposes of domestic regulation. We spurn the idea that the free, sovereign and independent State of Massachusetts is reduced to a mere municipal corporation, without power to protect its people, and to defend them from oppression, from whatever quarter it comes. Whenever the national compact is violated, and the citizens of this State are oppressed by cruel and unauthorized laws, this Legislature is bound to interpose its power, and wrest from the oppressor its victim.

Can you please describe for us the difference between an assault weapon and an automatic rifle? Further, can you elaborate on why “assault weapons” pose more of a threat than handguns?

Timothy Sandefur: Bingham was always a nationalist, and always believed that individual rights appertain to one’s national citizenship–and that the states were violating that principle up to and including the Civil War era.

No he wasn’t. He always proclaimed himself a states right man. That is why he liked quoting Calhoun.

Timothy Sandefur:
Thus when he argued the Amendment would do ‘nothing new,’ he meant it–the Amendment would simply, for the first time, fulfill what he believed to be the original promise of protection for individual rights against states.

But doesn’t Cato want it fulfilled between citizens of a state and their own state and not citizens of the United States in another state?

The framers of the Constitution left a long trail ofevidence that they indeed meant for the Constitution to create a new national identity. Alexander Hamilton observed in The Federalist…

Whatever Hamilton may have said, he was surely not one of the framers of the Constitution. He left the Convention when it became clear that it would not create the national government he favored. He returned to sign it and propagandize in its favor only because he thought it better than the Articles of Confederation.

James Madison echoed this point when he explained that while under the Articles of Confederation, Congress’s power proceeded from “the dependent derivative authority of the legislatures of the states,” while under the Constitution it would come “from the superior power of the people.”

Notice that Madison says nothing of a “new national identity” in the quote. If the authority of the Constitution comes from the people, it does not thereby generate anything beyond an entity with specific, limited powers. Note also that ratification was via representative conventions, and it was state-by-state. “We the people” comes across, unfortunately, as a bit of a propaganda term.