Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

A Continuation of the Gun Debate

—

by

Dick Hall-Sizemore
in

A Select Fire (Semi Auto / Full Auto) Glock 17

by Dick Hall-Sizemore

James Sherlock yesterday brought up a case in which a man in Virginia Beach had pleaded guilty to possessing a machine gun; in his case, it was a modified Glock. The maximum sentence for the offense is 10 years.

There was a robust discussion, primarily on the Second Amendment in general and the laws of New York. I would like to focus the discussion a little more and a fresh post seemed the best way to do that.

Because the case was the subject of a DOJ news release, I assume that the case was in federal court. But that does not matter for the purposes of the questions I want to pose for discussion, particularly by those who are defenders of the Second Amendment.

  1. Do you think that a weapon such as the one described, a Glock modified to function as a machine gun, should be illegal?
  2.  The press release said that the defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a machine gun. The maximum sentence under the law is 10 years. Assuming that this is the only offense for which he is being convicted in this case (the press release would have mentioned any others, it would seem) and assuming that he does not have a criminal record of convictions for breaking any other gun laws or violent offense, how much time, if any, do you think he should get?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

69 responses to “A Continuation of the Gun Debate”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar
    LarrytheG

    re: ” Do you think that a weapon such as the one described, a Glock modified to function as a machine gun, should be illegal?”

    or perhaps also – are there weapons that should be illegal or should people be allowed to own any weapon no matter how deadly as a 2nd amendment “right”?

    Is there a point on the weapon continuum where we do draw the line?

    thanks for continuing the discussion.

    1. kls Avatar
      kls

      The Texas Tower shooting was done with a bolt action rifle — late 1800s technology.

      Additionally, not a single legally owned fully automatic firearm has been used in a criminal act.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        If they were as easy to own as other guns?

      2. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        “not a single legally owned fully automatic firearm has been used in a criminal act.”

        That’s not quite the case, but the number is very, very low which is consistent with your point.

      3. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        “not a single legally owned fully automatic firearm has been used in a criminal act.”

        That’s not quite the case, but the number is very, very low which is consistent with your point.

  2. Matt Hurt Avatar
    Matt Hurt

    Until the Constitution is amended, the current laws that make that Glock modification (primarily 1934 National Firearms Act) are unconstitutional. The Constitution was explicitly written in an attempt to thwart the political ambitions of imperfect men who were tasked with governing our nation. The Second Amendment was specifically written so that the government would not hold the monopoly on violence, and that the citizenry would serve as another check on unbridled governmental power. Please keep in mind that Lexington and Concord were still fresh in the minds of the framers of the Constitution. Unfortunately, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government began to assail the Constitution even before the ink was dry, and continue to do so to this day. “Shall not be infringed” should mean something, but it doesn’t. The more we allow the Constitution to be watered down, adjudicated in an activist manner, and simply ignored, the quicker we hasten the dissolution of the Republic. The 2nd Amendment is but one example of many where this is taking place.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The armed overthrow of the US government is an illegal act. The 2nd is to provide for the defense, not as a check, of the government. No less than Scalia has held that position.

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar
        Matt Hurt

        As was taking up arms against the King.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          is the 2A purely and legally ONLY for defense against the govt? Is “defense” also “overthrow”?

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            It’s personal defense only now.

          2. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            “Unsuccesful rebellions indeed generally establish the incroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medecine necessary for the sound health of government.”- Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 30 January 1787.

            Let’s put this in the perspective of Germany during the 1930’s. Would the defense of the German populace (and millions of non-Germans) during that time frame justify the overthrow of Hitler? I don’t subscribe to the “oh, that could never happen here” argument because I take heed to Solzhenitsyn- “The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either — but right through every human heart.”

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            You said a lot there.

            Here’s a view , not sure I fully understand yours yet.

            First , “rebellions” and the US. We have always had _some_ militia that oppose the govt, the question is what percent of all citizens are with them. The number varies over time, but seldom has it been significant percentage until Trump came along and the Tea Party and evangelicals and others like him.

            Second, on Hitler. The people were largely with him especially early on, right? Hitler was never “overthrown” by the German people.

            Finally, on the 2A issue itself.

            Is 2A purpose to be able to DEFEND against govt or to defend than overthrow?

            Seems like the ‘defend only” thing leads essentially to anarchy or anarchy lite – i.e. push the govt back and self-govern in isolated enclaves each with it’s own independent governance without organizing new national-level governance.

            i.e. divided we fall

            There are so many things besides 2A in the modern world that the founding fathers never saw coming and basically were silent on in the Constitution and left it up to SCOTUS and Constitutional changes to cure.

            e.g. – If Congress passes a law to allocate radio frequencies, is it ‘Un-Constitutional” if those new laws were not supported with changes to the Constitution to codify them?

          4. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            In my reading, it seems that the framers of the Constitution considered the People of our country to have primacy over the government. That document was written to limit the power of the government so the government would not devolve into tyranny. They included many checks and balances to keep that from happening. They deliberately constrained the government so that it could do little. Those folks, who certainly had a lot of flaws, realized that the ambitions of men must be constrained and that power created the thirst for more power.

            Over the years, we have witnessed many catastrophes, and this will certainly continue as long as we humans inhabit Earth. These are endemic to the human species. In much of our history, governments overreact to these catastrophes in ways that cause unintended consequences. For example, we intervened overseas in order to protect our petro-dollar which pissed off a bunch of folks who came over here to fly planes into buildings. Our legislators, who are always reticent to allow a good crisis go to waste enacted the Patriot Act. In Virginia, our legislators (who failed to understand that Virginia ranks about 8th in the nation in reading) voted to follow the lead of Mississippi (who ranks 40th in the nation in reading) in order to improve the reading outcomes in Virginia.

            In both of these examples, these legislators didn’t know a bit more about what they were voting for than the man in the moon. They certainly didn’t have the forethought to consider the many negative, unintended consequences that will follow. This type of thing has happened for a long time, and will continue to do so. Therefore, I do not feel comfortable affording the monopoly of violence to humans who are just as flawed as me. I can’t see any good to come of that. It is better the government fear the citizens than the subjects to fear the government.

            It is important to understand that in the early 1770’s, most of the framers considered themselves loyal subjects of the crown. It’s like the old saying, “everything is ok until it ain’t”.

            By the way, if you haven’t noticed, the only thing we have in common in this country anymore is division. There is no national threat, such as the Germans, the Japanese, or the Russians to pull us together. We don’t have the leadership who can inspire the nation, only leaders who can denigrate the opposing party.

            I am very concerned that the rule of law we have enjoyed for such a long time is beginning to erode at a more rapid rate. When plain language doesn’t mean the same thing to any literate person, we’re in trouble. When the Constitution can be interpreted in so many ways, based on either a literal interpretation of the language of the time in which it was written, or by the interpreter applying the situation/norms of the day, we are in trouble. This document has been glossed over by many a court, and completely disregarded by many legislators and Presidents. Sometimes a court uses the actual language in the document to decide a case, and sometimes we see evidence of judicial activism.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Pre-2nd. Sorry, but them’s the new rules. They superseded the rules you are pretending still exist. In fact, the Supreme Court long ago resolved even the need of miltias. Some late 1800s case involving Illinois and some militia that was denied a permit to parade.

          1. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            The SCOTUS bats 1.000? Remember United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944)?

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      Did the Founding Fathers intend for citizens to be able to own ANY weapon the Military can posses as a parity to take up arms if ‘necessary” and how does that reconcile which what NN points out about violent overthrow?

      1. Matt Hurt Avatar
        Matt Hurt

        Yes. Being that the intent was to ensure the government didn’t hold a monopoly on violence, the citizenry must have parity with the government.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          So, people are entitled to own weapons like a stinger missile that can bring down airliners or blow a bus or train to smithereens?

          1. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            Yes, until the Constitution is amended.

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Thank you for the honest and forthright answer.

            So the issue really is that ‘arms actually means ‘arms’ – any kind or type without “infringement”?

            Can I ask what your position on that is?
            Do you favor restrictions?

          3. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            To infringe means to “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on”, or “actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)”. How can one restrict and not infringe according to the letter of the Constitution? If the words of the Constitution don’t mean what they mean, where are we with regards to the rule of law?

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            In his mind only.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Wow! Just so wrong.

          1. Matt Hurt Avatar
            Matt Hurt

            Often wrong, but never in doubt.

  3. vicnicholls Avatar
    vicnicholls

    Do you think that a weapon such as the one described, a Glock modified to function as a machine gun, should be illegal?

    Any use of said modified weapon in conjunction with a felony crime should get nailed. I’ve shot machine guns before. They’re fun. Why should I get nailed for simply shooting a gun that is legal and used in a legal manner?

    The press release said that the defendant pleaded guilty to possessing a machine gun. The maximum sentence under the law is 10 years. Assuming that this is the only offense for which he is being convicted in this case (the press release would have mentioned any others, it would seem) and assuming that he does not have a criminal record of convictions of any other gun laws or violent offense, how much time, if any, do you think he should get?

    If they are using said weapon in the commission of a crime, or aiding and abetting a crime, there is your law. Make any firearm that is used in commission of felonies automatic that the judge can’t fart with. That way the ones who use them and have them will have their 2nd amendment rights, those who use them for purposes not in keeping with harmonious living, respecting body and property rights, pay the penalty.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      He did not plead guilty, nor was convicted, of using the weapon in conjunction with the commission of a crime. How much time do you think he should get solely for possessing a machine gun? That is the question.

      1. DJRippert Avatar
        DJRippert

        One year of probation.

      2. vicnicholls Avatar
        vicnicholls

        I answered that: “That way the ones who use them and have them will have their 2nd amendment rights, those who use them for purposes not in keeping with harmonious living, respecting body and property rights, pay the penalty.”

        Tie everything into do they commit a crime or not. If this guy didn’t get any conviction, then he should have nothing. A car can kill. Why go after those who do not kill with it? Why can’t they have it legitimately and use it for legitimate purposes?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Excellent reason to require firearm and ammo liability insurance.

          1. vicnicholls Avatar
            vicnicholls

            Not for what you advocate. You advocate someone stealing guns and still going after the owner. That’s like going after the owner of a car that was stolen and someone used them to commit a crime with it. That’s crap and no one would stand for that. They didn’t aid and abet that person. So then you’ll go after criminals if they sell goods obtained illegally? Will you add to their sentances? You prosecute the person who committed the crime, not someone else.

  4. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    It will cost you about 20,000 dollars. But I would love to have one. Working 12 pound napoleon cannon that shoots. Complete with accessories, limber, and trailer. Battery crew not included. You can buy just about anything you want in the US that has black powder in it.
    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b9d57bbbabbd9fa487f8cdb32aba7adaadedd8b71df4bc56337dbb18e22c6acc.jpg

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0f1b60f2122de9073ba4a3ad32029cdb845e8e19855bf900f59058f8fe33ec64.jpg how about one of these?

      1. kls Avatar
        kls

        I can get you a cannon for a lot less…. and it is FUN. but you should really try a Gatling Gun!!

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          any and all as easy to own as a bolt action rifle? You support that?

          On Amazon in Walmart?

          1. kls Avatar
            kls

            no paper work to own a cannon — considered an antic and relic. not sure about the Gatling Gun…. by the way, when was either used in a crime?

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            used in a crime? you make any/all cheap and available to anyone and then what?

            How about we allow Mac10s to be sold by Amazon for $59 and anyone with a credit card can buy one ?

            okay? still none will be used illegally?

          3. kls Avatar
            kls

            ah….. the cheap ‘Saturday Night Special’ angle — debunked years ago.

            You still must go through a licensed FFL dealer and undergo a background check if you buy a firearm from an on-line dealer.

            MAC-10 is merely a firearm. Nothing illegal or threatening until it’s used for a bad purpose by a bad person.

            Do you own a car? Can it go faster than the posted speed limit? Can it be used to kill a person [remember the Christmas Parade??]

            If so, it should be outlawed – don’t you think?

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            and I’m asking if the 2A really means any “arms” then why not let anyone buy any weapon without restrictions?

            The Constitutions does not say you have a “right” to drive a car like it does for a weapon, right?

            are you confusing the two? There is no “right” to own or drive a car, right?

            If the Constitution guarantees the right to bear “arms” does it mean any weapon that exists for any person that wants one with the intent for citizens to have weapons parity with the govt?

            Isn’t that the basic idea?

            Otherwise, a ‘cannon” or Gatling gun won’t be near as much firepower than the govt has.

      2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
        James Wyatt Whitehead

        Stonewall Jackson suggested pikes for his men since they were short on muskets in 1861. No assembly required.
        https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8d88dbe87e5e919c78d3c23e6caf42ca51384a6123004bea87e2f83124863665.jpg

  5. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    It is not illegal to own a machine gun, the funnist of guns.
    https://rocketffl.com/who-can-own-a-full-auto-machine-gun/

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      Those AK47’s aren’t what I thought they were going to be. 357 and 44 Magnums are just a lot of recoil/bang. The autos are fun as anything. Trying to hold the recoil is a bear.

      1. kls Avatar
        kls

        Start at the lower right side of the target [from its perspective]… the recoil will take the rounds from that point of aim to the upper left side…got 10/10 rounds in the torso target that way.. so did the team mate who listened to me.

        1. vicnicholls Avatar
          vicnicholls

          I was too busy with a huge grin on my face after shooting the Magnums once. I need to assume a different stance, I was standing like I was holding a handgun not a AR15 style rifle.

      2. David Wojick Avatar
        David Wojick

        Yes the military Thompsons came with a long strap to put you foot on, to prevent recoil climb. Or turn it sideways and mow, if the target is appropriate. Agree about magnums.

      3. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Shoot in 10 second bursts. Select-fire weapons are for suppressing fire, not effective fire.

  6. walter smith Avatar
    walter smith

    1. NO
    2. None. It is unconstitutional.
    The problem is criminals don’t obey laws. You can make anything illegal. That doesn’t mean people will obey the law. Our current administration intentionally violates the law. Intentionally.
    Meanwhile, the Left (and to some extent some on the Right) want to pass new laws all the time. We might want to try living under the ones we have. Academia is blatantly violating the law. (Explicit racial discrimination to end racism, as only academics can rationalize) The mandates were illegal.
    Law is power. Government is a fire. They both need to be restrained and just.
    We need less government and more personal morality. Sorry for hurting feelings… (not really) – a friend tells you the truth. Faithful are the wounds of a friend…

  7. Kathleen Smith Avatar
    Kathleen Smith

    Interesting discussion. M Hurt’s point about the war head being legal until we change the constitution really affirms the idea that the constitution has to change first.

    Also interesting is the fact that the guy got 10 years simply having possession.

    It is not what I think, but what the law says.

    I think the guy had intentions other than peaceful, but it doesn’t make it unlawful. I think he should be in jail, but that doesn’t mean by law he should.

    Sort of like the cancel culture. Don’t like his choice of weapon so let’s cancel him.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      The offender has not yet been sentenced. 10 years is the maximum he could get under the law.

  8. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Should they be illegal? As many have noted, they aren’t nor should they be necessarily. But all guns should be just as well regulated, imo.

  9. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    This is a complicated legal area, not one I know much about. Automatic weapons are not “illegal” as I understand it so much as regulated, and with the right federal permits individuals can own them. But unlicensed modifications like those involved here are very much illegal, and new federal rules are expected soon dealing with so-called “ghost guns” that people build from parts themselves. One precept I have come to accept is that the problem is people, not their tools, and plenty of other deadly weapons are out there. The problem with automatics is, to borrow line from “The Wind and the Lion,” they fire many bullets promiscuously. (People not being aimed at get killed.)

    1. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      Not only unlicensed, but anything manufactured after 1986 that is a select fire weapon. NFA 1934 regulated, 1968 expanded and 1986 banned all after. 1994 expounded rules based upon looks and fear not function, which is why is sunsetted.

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      Great movie! I always found Connery to be the equal of the best Brit actors. He and Caine were great in The Man Who Would Be King.

      Um, can you give an example of laws where people aren’t the problem?

      For centuries the Lanchaster Attrition Model that basically models the rate of attrition of blue forces as proportional to the size of red forces, and vice versa, described warfare and results. The rapid fire machine guns changed that.

  10. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    The least society might require to provide some protection for bystander injuries from firearms is mandatory liability insurance at the point of sale for the weapons and ammo. Yes, some weapons should be defined as illegal. And mere possession punishable by minimum terms. Even Thomas Jefferson thought the right to bear arms applied to owners on their own property.

    1. vicnicholls Avatar
      vicnicholls

      If that were true we’d still be POME’s.

  11. Wallace Avatar
    Wallace

    The question here is what crime did he commit using this modified Glock? If he did not misuse the weapon, the 2d Amendment protects his possession of the pistol…except for these pesky laws. Dickens said it best: “If the law says that, then the law is a ass!”

  12. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    Everyone except Matt and maybe Walter Smith is avoiding the question. Put another way, since the Second Amendment says that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, do you think that, unlike any other civil liberty, the right to bear arms should be unlimited? Matt seems to be an absolutist. He thinks the Second Amendment means that there can be no limits and that citizens can be armed to the teeth if they wish. So, regardless of what laws currently say, would you say that any law limiting the power of a citizen to be armed would be a violation of the Second Amendment?

    For those who want to go back to the beginning and determine what the Founding Fathers meant by this language, here is a link to an amicus brief filed by some of the nation’s most distinguished historians of that era that discusses the meaning that the drafters had when they wrote this amendment. They argue that one needs to look at the entire context of the Amendment and they conclude:

    “Once explored, this context establishes that the
    private keeping of firearms was manifestly not the right
    that the framers of the Bill of Rights guaranteed in 1789.
    Though Anglo-American political tradition did indeed
    value the idea of an armed populace, it never treated
    private ownership of firearms as an individual right.”

    https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      The absolutist advocates ignore reductio ad absurdum. As some have stated, until the Constitution is amended (not by SCOTUS) the right to acquire fighter jets, nuclear weapons, tanks, missiles, etc is unfettered. Reason and logic have no place in that universe.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Nuclear weapons are governed by international law, I realize you’re using them hyperbolically because you lack the basic knowledge of current laws.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      I think Matt is correct, myself. I’m not advocating this but I think the rules we do have are quite arbitrary and not really based on the Constitution which basically says “arms” without clarifying what kind or stipulating restrictions.

      Because of this, the back and forth about restrictions and kinds of weapons just continues with advocates claiming that they are legal and opponents claiming they should be restrictions.

      There is no bright-line in the Constitution other than “arms” shall not be restricted.

    3. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      The problem with your citation is that they ignore Madison’s original text for the Second Amendment.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        See pages 25-28 of the brief for an extensive discussion of Madison’s original text.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          ““The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person,” said Madison.”

          If you have any further questions about Madison’s intent on the 2nd Amendment, I suggest you hold a seance, as irregardless what is presented to you. You’ll only approve of your own confirmation bais.

          PS:. Federalist #29 was Hamilton.

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I don’t need a seance. I understand that writers in the 18th century, such as Madison, used punctuation differently than we do today. Now, a semicolon is used almost like a period, that is, to separate two complete thoughts. In the 18th century, punctuation was used to signify pauses in speaking. A semicolon signified a little longer pause than a comma. Also, in the 18th century, semicolons were used quite liberally. It has been called the “18th century semicolon”. See p. 17 of this link for a fuller discussion of the differences between now and the time of the writing of the Constitution in the understanding of punctuation. http://www.floridalawreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/NardellaNote-BOOKEIC2.pdf

          2. Matt Adams Avatar
            Matt Adams

            “I don’t need a seance. I understand that writers in the 18th century, such as Madison, used punctuation differently than we do today. Now, a semicolon is used almost like a period, that is, to separate two complete thoughts.”

            “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”

            Where exactly in the quoted above text does a punctuation come into play? You’re still under the assumption that the text of the 2nd Amendment as it stands today was Madison, it wasn’t. This is the second time I’ve quoted Madison’s originial text for the 2nd Amendment and you’ve either not understood it or ignored it because it didn’t fit your confirmation bias.

            Your link it pointless and just points out your own hubris beyond the fact that I understand how punctuation is used just fine.

            So the next time you want to lecture someone, stop and think. Do I even know what I’m talking about and at this point unless it’s a function of VA government you don’t know squat.

    4. walter smith Avatar
      walter smith

      I answered! But then gave a brief homily…for me!
      I think “we” are now realizing that “we” have tolerated nibbling around the edge of “rights” for too long, and that the only way to preserve the rights is absolutist. I think a LOT of Supreme Court jurisdiction needs to be taken away and we need to revert to something closer to our set up. We were not meant to be ruled by 9 judges in black robes…

    5. Lefty665 Avatar
      Lefty665

      That was an amicus in Heller. Contrary to the amicus the court in Heller found that there was an individual right to arms.

      Also contrary to the amicus the majority opinion among constitutional scholars had for quite some time been that there was an individual right.

      FWIW among a number of D.C. lawyers and D.C. types I was familiar with it had been the opinion for decades that the D.C. gun laws were unconstitutional. It was also their opinion that it would take someone with the time and money to pursue the issue to the Supreme Court to overturn the laws. They were correct, and Heller was that guy.

      It seems likely that in the cases coming before the court it will expand upon Heller and push back some rulings, regulations and laws that have encroached upon it.

      That said, in Heller the court was explicit that there could be reasonable limits on the individual right to bear arms. After the current cases are decided we will likely have a clearer view of what restrictions the court finds are permitted and what are not.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        I think that the Rakove and the other historians made a strong case for their interpretation of the history and context of the Second Amendment. In spite of all his claims to being an originalist, Scalia ignored those historical arguments.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar
          Lefty665

          I agree they made their case, and that it was an honest case to make. However, it was not a case that either the majority of constitutional academics or the Supreme Court found to be compelling. Their mileage varied, and still does.

          The court seems primed to make that clear with the cases they have taken this year.

          Scalia made his understanding of the constitution and the law very clear writing the opinion in Heller, as he did in all cases. Scalia was not shy.

          Suggesting that he “ignored those historical arguments” is I believe a mischaracterization. Rather, he found other elements of history and the constitution itself more compelling.

          Please note I was never a fan of Scalia’s. I thought he got a lot of things wrong. But, he periodically would come out strongly for individual rights over the statist inclinations of the court. I cheered those decisions, and Heller was one of those.

          1. Lefty665 Avatar
            Lefty665

            Jonathan Turley on cannons and the 2nd amendment this morning:

            https://jonathanturley.org/2022/04/12/no-the-second-amendment-did-not-prohibit-cannon-ownership-in-the-early-republic/#more-187214

Leave a Reply

Read More