The lack of civil preparedness as legal argument for RKBA

[Gerald_H]

It's more than likely that this has been gone over before, but due to recent laws going into effect perhaps the civil preparedness argument is more viable now. Using California as an example; if a state is going to pass laws to cripple the effectiveness (and industry) of certain types of guns it should have the plans and resources in place to protect the residents of the state during times of crisis. If it doesn't then the law can be overturned (in federal court) that prevents a resident of that state from possessing a firearm for that intended purpose. Thus ensuring that other states can't pass similar laws. The argument that day-to-day public safety is of more concern is not valid and is unjustly putting the burden of public safety on the individual, who, in this case is being prevented from doing just that. I would like to hear your thoughts and experiences in regards to my statement.

Gerald H

 

[Sam1911]

There aren't any states that prohibit a resident of a state from owning a firearm for whatever lawful purpose he or she wishes. So I don't think that would hold water.


Sure, there are some states that say this or that gun can't be sold or owned there. Or that say a gun must be registered, or that you can't carry one around with you. But unless you're able to sustain the argument that you really couldn't realistically be "armed" with a pump action 12 ga. shotgun -- and you can't -- then I don't see this argument having any traction at all.

 

[Gerald_H]

Seems logical till you see a semi-auto rifle in use. I would feel limited by a shotgun in a situation that the armed individual(s) your were trying to protect yourself from had semi-auto rifles. It can easily be established that in southern California there are thousands of gang members who would still process these weapons even after a complete ban on semi-auto rifles. So, the point is what is being done for this situation? The laws need to reflect an effort has been made to protect the public. I am suggesting that the effort for public safety needs to be addressed in other areas first. If it has been neglected, then the law limiting an individual to best protect themselves is counter productive to public safety, which is the reasoning for bans on certain weapons in the first place.

 

[Sam1911]

Believe it or not, I have seen a semi-auto rifle in use. And I wouldn't try to make this argument.

You'd be arguing a case that has never been accepted by the Courts: i.e., that a specific type of firearm must be made legal because the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not met by them being able to keep and bear SOME arms.

And your point would also run into the fact that gangs and gang members have full-auto firearms as well. But the Courts have never, ever, accepted an argument that prohibitions (in some states) or exorbitant taxes and the closing of the MG registry which keep 99.9% of US citizens from lawfully owning a full-auto weapon make for an undue burden on the citizen who wants to be prepared to defend himself from gang members with illegal machine guns.

From the gang/crime angle, in 2014 only a smidge over 2% of all the murders in the country were committed with any kind of rifle, so the argument that gang-related violence committed with one specific kind of rifle really represents a significant threat to Joe Citizen would fall completely flat.

 

[GEM]

If it doesn't then the law can be overturned (in federal court) that prevents a resident of that state from possessing a firearm for that intended purpose.

That is sheer speculation. We haven't seen court precedent for anything like you've suggested. If anything, the flow of recent decisions and lack of action by SCOTUS suggests that banning the more combat oriented guns is just fine. Combat oriented is a bad term but I'm struggling with one that encompasses the idea of the extreme critical incident of the OP. The recent Heller and McD decisions seem more aimed at the simple burglar/mugger scenario and not a civilization collapse, gang warfare shootout, etc. I don't think and have said that we have little chance of seeing state gun type bans being overturned at the court levels.

I've suggested legislation to do that but see no priority in the current Congress or President to be pro-active on expanding RKBA protections.

 

[Gerald_H]

The focus on guns is my point, the semi-auto rifle being part of that point. Cars kill more children then guns do. The focus on guns is not justified and does not resolve the issues that the laws are based on. Even though cars are responsible for more deaths, it is not addressed with the focus that guns receive. If public safety is the basis of bans, then there are areas of public safety that are being neglected. There are laws that allow cars to drive within certain speeds. I am suggesting that a semi-auto rifle is within a reasonable limit of gun ownership (with a freely removable 10 round magazine) and the needs are present, just as the need for highways and cars are present, even though cars account for more childhood deaths then anything else in this country. Fact check the book "Gun Violence, Opposing Viewpoints". Ultimately, once the semi-auto rifle is banned, so is your shotgun and then your freedom of speech. There are many areas of public safety and civil preparedness that being neglected compared to guns. By using this argument, I feel the rights of gun owners can be preserve and by doing that ensure that rights of all individuals are preserved. I didn't have much concern about certain weapons being banned over the years. I figured it would go so far and stop. When I saw the lines of people buying AR's before the end of the year in California, I knew it was time to get concerned.

 

[Gerald_H]

extreme critical incident of the OP.

I lived in Santa Cruz during the Loma Prieta earthquake. I was a hundred feet away, under the clock tower at the Pacific Garden Mall where two young women were buried alive in the coffee shop they were working at. Santa Cruz being what it is, was a safe place to be, without electricity, cut off from communication and main roadways for three days. In fact the only looting was on a adult themed store in the Pacific Garden Mall. But by the end of the third day, it started getting edgy. There were reports of violence from neighboring Watsonville. A few years later I was living in Orange County, CA during the LA riots. People were more than concerned about the violence spreading. I am not worried about end of civilization scenarios, but from those experiences I do feel it is justified if a person wants to own a semi-auto rifle. To clarify, I do not own any center-fire semi-auto rifles, but as a point of protest I decided to wait till after the end of year and purchase a new AR-15 stripped lower. I guess I own one now.

 

[reddog81]

I believe if the SCOTUS took a rational look at the law it would overturn the ban, but that's just my opinion. The AR-15 or M16 would be the top choice of any militia today. IMO the second amendment specifically covers if not solely exists for these types of weapons.

I'm not sure I understand the argument as you presented it. Just because gang members break the law doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow everyone to participate in that unlawful activity. Cars are completely different form guns. How many kids ride in cars everyday vs how many kids are shot at or go shooting every day? IMO any comparison is not logical and is a distraction from the issue at hand.

 

[GEM]

First, the argument you think will preserve the rights has NOT been persuasive in changing antigun folks. You pose a hypothetical of having to use military derivative weapons in extreme incidents as compared to the gun deaths that are due to criminals or suicides.

Second, you propose a 10 round mag ban - that neuters the AR platforms in a true extreme incident. It certainly neuters the common and popular carry guns like the Glock 19s, MPs, etc. that have a higher capacity.

Now, folks will say that the average gun fight is 3 to 5 rounds, so your proposed limit is to high. The 7 round limit of the NY Safe Act (since abandoned) demonstrates what antigun forces will propose.

A 10 round limit makes no sense for your proposal. You cannot buy into such just to get a semi rifle.

As far as saying that gun bans lead to freedom of speech bans - that won't be convincing to antigun folks as they do not see gun rights as fundamental but an anachronism in the BOR.

I appreciate your efforts but a 10 round limit accepts the basic premise of controlling reasonable firearms at a level which is just not reasonable for self-defense in extreme circumstances or for the defense against tyranny.

 

[Gerald_H]

Thanks for everyone's input. As a sidenote, I was speaking with a retired LE in my neighborhood about the LA riots last night. It changed a lot of perspectives. He said his anti-gun inlaws borrowed a 357 from him. He also said his sister-in-law ended up buying herself a 9mm semi-auto after that. Now the perspective is San Bernardino.

 

[Leanwolf]

I've always believed that "in a fix," you use the gun you have, even if it's not a "new" BUG (Black Ugly Gun).

Clint Smith also believes in using whatever you have available for self defense.





L.W.

 

[GEM]

BUG is standard terminology for a backup gun.
EBR is common usage for evil black rifle.

Silly me to be a terminology cop.

Smith is correct. We could probably defend the house from the burglar with a Walker Colt.

People have called lever action guns, the assault rifles of restrictive states. However, we don't want to push that as then you undercut the argument for the EBRs and higher capacity handguns.

 

[Gerald_H]

I've always believed that "in a fix," you use the gun you have, even if it's not a "new" BUG (Black Ugly Gun).

Clint Smith also believes in using whatever you have available for self defense.

Yup, but the recent laws have me a bit ticked. I feel if I don't try to change things it's going to get worse.

 

[Gerald_H]

BTW-I appreciate the video on "forgotten guns". I was looking for a 357 level action when I decided to buy a stripped lower. I wish Ruger still made the 77m in 357, that would have done just fine too.

 

[jdc1244]

Cars kill more children then guns do.

Comparing guns with cars fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And there is no evidence that regulatory measures such as limiting magazine capacity has an adverse effect on the ability of state residents to defend themselves, as we saw with an unsuccessful court challenge to Colorado’s magazine limit legislation.

I feel if I don't try to change things it's going to get worse.

This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

 

[PabloJ]

It's more than likely that this has been gone over before, but due to recent laws going into effect perhaps the civil preparedness argument is more viable now. Using California as an example; if a state is going to pass laws to cripple the effectiveness (and industry) of certain types of guns it should have the plans and resources in place to protect the residents of the state during times of crisis. If it doesn't then the law can be overturned (in federal court) that prevents a resident of that state from possessing a firearm for that intended purpose. Thus ensuring that other states can't pass similar laws. The argument that day-to-day public safety is of more concern is not valid and is unjustly putting the burden of public safety on the individual, who, in this case is being prevented from doing just that. I would like to hear your thoughts and experiences in regards to my statement.

Gerald H

No need to worry other than having reasonable amount of food and water for emergencies. We have national guard our new leader is spending more on defense and private mercenary armies like old Black Water USA (not sure what new name is) can be contracted by government to help if needed. There is no need to burden civilians with security responsibilities.

 

[DMK]

There aren't any states that prohibit a resident of a state from owning a firearm for whatever lawful purpose he or she wishes. So I don't think that would hold water.

Wasn't this the exact premise of DC vs Heller? (I suppose because it wasn't a state?)

 

[Sam1911]

Wasn't this the exact premise of DC vs Heller? (I suppose because it wasn't a state?)

Pretty much so.

 

[Tirod]

Using California as an example is precisely what most other states avoid now. It's more than well known the state is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Their Calexit fans have no clue it won't help, and there will be no allowance of it under any Administration in the next century. Most of their environmental regulations are anti business and that word has gone around in those circles, not to forget the exodus of major corporations leaving as long ago as the 1980's.

Thinking they are the leading proponent of anti gun regulations is where the OP's concept fails. There weapons policies aren't being entertained in a widespread manner, and the bulk of states between the coasts are actually trending toward Constitutional carry, along with reducing the restrictions in types of guns and their use. California and some eastern coastal states are now the odd men out, and the longer it remains that way the more pointed the comparison becomes to those residents who do own guns. It's creating a pass/fail test for 2A rights proponents and forcing some of them to reconsider their previous stands - they are finding out that yes, we told them correctly a long time ago, it's NOT about "combat firearms," they are deliberately targeting ALL firearms in any way they can. Those who didn't believe it are now being made the fools they never thought they were and it adds more to the ranks of the pro gun owners daily.

What the urban centers need to realize is that there very well could be a "Calexit" - the rest of the state from the three major urban areas who attempt to divorce their control over them. We joke about building a wall but when it comes down to it, most of the rural and small town Californians would be overjoyed to build one around SF, LA, and Sac - to keep them in. All they do is cause them trouble and mess with their lives - which even an old hillbilly in Missouri is aware of.

California an example? It is, every day, and it reminds a lot of people how things can be done wrong.

 

[jamesjames]

I am intrigued by the argument that self defense from gangs armed with semi-auto pistols or rifles would certainly necessitate lawful use by civilians of a semi-auto rifle like an AR. Most gang members are still using semi auto pistols due to conceal-ability. But they may do drive-byes with a rifle. They may also mount a direct attack against a person or family in a domicile with multiple weapons including semi-auto rifles.

At this point, the defense of self, family, and home seems to indicate a need for a semi-auto rifle capable of engaging multiple attacking/intruder targets. Especially if LE is completely unable to respond effectively in real time. The argument that the citizenry should not have access to military style small arms is specious, because most all small arms were originally developed for military use and then subsequently adopted by civilians for hunting and self defense. It seems that criminal violence in south side Chicago or Baltimore could be stemmed with households arming and training themselves with an effective deterrent like the AR.

The argument that the AR is a wholly different weapon and completely inappropriate for civilian use is only possible if propaganda words like "assault rifle" are used to taint the rifle in the public perception and skew the argument toward reactionary regulation or ban.

 

[Tommygunn]

Comparing guns with cars fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And there is no evidence that regulatory measures such as limiting magazine capacity has an adverse effect on the ability of state residents to defend themselves, as we saw with an unsuccessful court challenge to Colorado’s magazine limit legislation.
This fails as a slippery slope fallacy.

There have been cases in which persons living in sparsely populated areas have been beset by multiple attackers or gangs, and have found an M-1 Carbine with a couple of 30 rnd mags very useful in defense.
Are you arguing that magazine cap bans are constitutional?
I don't think people who do know what "infringed" means.
But that's just this layman's opinion.

 

[PabloJ]

I am intrigued by the argument that self defense from gangs armed with semi-auto pistols or rifles would certainly necessitate lawful use by civilians of a semi-auto rifle like an AR. Most gang members are still using semi auto pistols due to conceal-ability. But they may do drive-byes with a rifle. They may also mount a direct attack against a person or family in a domicile with multiple weapons including semi-auto rifles.

At this point, the defense of self, family, and home seems to indicate a need for a semi-auto rifle capable of engaging multiple attacking/intruder targets. Especially if LE is completely unable to respond effectively in real time.

Experience from the breakdown of Yugoslavia indicated that cooperating neighbors plus handguns couple of magazines and box of 50 cartridges was enough. Some of you folks need to stop watching zombie movies and shows.

 

[Gerald_H]

Comparing guns with cars fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And there is no evidence that regulatory measures such as limiting magazine capacity has an adverse effect on the ability of state residents to defend themselves, as we saw with an unsuccessful court challenge to Colorado’s magazine limit legislation.

My point was public safety, cars are an example, I am not comparing them to guns in a 1 to 1 way.

No need to worry other than having reasonable amount of food and water for emergencies. We have national guard our new leader is spending more on defense and private mercenary armies like old Black Water USA (not sure what new name is) can be contracted by government to help if needed. There is no need to burden civilians with security responsibilities.

My concern is that the semi-auto rifle is getting whittled away and a complete ban is on the horizon. Should a 10 round magazine be the limit a state can impose on civilians? With the focus on removable magazines, should there not be an effort to stop this from going any further? A semi-auto rifle without a freely removable magazine shows the overall intent of some states to ultimately ban semi-auto rifles. Using the lack of effort by a state in other areas such as civil preparedness and public safety with regards to transportation, food, water and power can show there are other areas that the state is neglecting and that the focus on guns is counterproductive to public safety. In states, such as California, a major earthquake is not an if, it is a when. Not preparing for a two-week blackout and removing the means such as the semi-auto rifle civilians can use to protect themselves is counterproductive to public safety. The national guard will not stop looting and mayhem in time. The LA riots showed armed civilians on rooftops of their businesses stopped the LA riots from escalating and spreading. It was not the state nor the federal government that kept the riots in check. It was groups of armed Korean businessmen acting as an impromptu militia. Taking away the semi-auto rifle with a freely removable 10-round magazine is counterproductive to public safety because it would be the most effective weapon that local militias to have in times of crisis. The state and national guard can have fully automatic weapons while the civilian populace are limited to semi-automatic.

 

[GEM]

You just cannot justify the 10 round limit based on utility in a critical incident that you describe. Also, you buy into the fully automatic ban. That is quite controversial in the RKBA community. This can be debated - however, the 10 round limit will fool nobody nor bring antigun folks to support the RKBA. As pointed out, quality research (not opinion) has demonstrated no effect of magazine limits on any crime indices. It is purely a political attack on the RKBA.

In CA, NY and the like, people are desperately designing gadgets and compliant guns - then those are attacked. The first time someone takes a lever action pistol caliber to a rampage - watch the bans.

I'm really sorry but your 'militia' of folks with limited semis isn't going to convince anyone. The progun people see it as unnecessarily limited and accepting an attack on the 2nd Amendment and the antigun folks don't want you to have anything - so there.

There have been rampage shooters with multiple 10 round mags in handguns. So as an antigunner, I could destroy your proposition that the limit makes sense, esp. if we don't buy into the Zombie apocalypse, big riot, etc. as being more likely and deadly to society than the current number of gun deaths, blah, blah.

 

[Sam1911]

My concern is that the semi-auto rifle is getting whittled away and a complete ban is on the horizon.

If by "getting whittled away" you mean that just one model of semi-auto rifle has become the most popular, hottest selling firearm in the USA and that somewhere between ten and twenty MILLION of them are owned by American civilians, then sure. If by "a complete ban is on the horizon" you mean, some restrictions on such were proposed in the immediate aftermath of the most emotionally wrenching mass murder in our lifetimes -- and were still utterly repulsed federally and in almost all of the states -- then yes.

Otherwise... well, no.

Should a 10 round magazine be the limit a state can impose on civilians?

Obviously none of us here would think so.

With the focus on removable magazines, should there not be an effort to stop this from going any further?

Have you been paying attention to the political fight in the last 20 years? A VERY great deal of effort has been spent in stopping these things from going further. And those efforts have largely worked. Not perfectly or completely in every location, but nationally oh yes.

A semi-auto rifle without a freely removable magazine shows the overall intent of some states to ultimately ban semi-auto rifles.

I don't think there's any question that a near-majority of the dominant political force in a few states would work for a ban on semi-auto rifles. This isn't surprising or new, or very well disguised. I mean, Dianne Feinstein was on television in 1995 saying, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in." Twenty-two years later we're STILL treading with muddy boots all over her dream.

Using the lack of effort by a state in other areas such as civil preparedness and public safety with regards to transportation, food, water and power can show there are other areas that the state is neglecting and that the focus on guns is counterproductive to public safety. In states, such as California, a major earthquake is not an if, it is a when. Not preparing for a two-week blackout and removing the means such as the semi-auto rifle civilians can use to protect themselves is counterproductive to public safety.

This seems to get a bit muddled. Are we still talking about putting together a federal court case? If so, you really can't mix up issues like whether the state is able to allocate resources for disaster preparedness with 2nd Amendment rights. Some states (presumably) are pretty adequately prepared for the sorts of disasters likely to occur there. Do the citizens of those states NOT enjoy the same rights to adequate modern arms because their state governments are theoretically able to take care of them in crisis situations? I don't think there's sound footing here.

The national guard will not stop looting and mayhem in time. The LA riots showed armed civilians on rooftops of their businesses stopped the LA riots from escalating and spreading. It was not the state nor the federal government that kept the riots in check. It was groups of armed Korean businessmen acting as an impromptu militia. Taking away the semi-auto rifle with a freely removable 10-round magazine is counterproductive to public safety because it would be the most effective weapon that local militias to have in times of crisis.

But looking at photos from the 1992 riots, those shop owners were carrying 1911s, shotguns, a lever action rifle or two, a bunch of other handguns, and I did see one with a Mini-14. I have to assume there were other guns as well and surely a few had ARs, but aside from firing into the air and ground to scare off looters, few if any credible stories seem to have emerged about needing large-capacity weapons to engage targets, nor of any real gun battles taking place, i.e.: rifle-vs.-rifle. So, as an example of where one would have to have a detachable magazine, semi-auto rifle, this might fall a bit flat. (Much as most of us would prefer such, as goes without saying.)

And the government has never seemed to be all that moved by the "citizens defending against civil unrest" idea at all. As obviously unsatisfactory as it certainly is to any of us, the government line is eternally, remain in your homes, don't confront rioters/looters, wait for the police or national guard, store damage is what insurance is for, etc. And truth be told, there's a lot of sense in that. It makes for a compelling argument to us, the gun counter crowd, but doesn't seem to have traction with the government.

The state and national guard can have fully automatic weapons while the civilian populace are limited to semi-automatic.

And doesn't fire them at civilian rioters, unless you see Kent State as a model for how well this can go.
From a hardware perspective, if you're going to use government forces' use of gear in response to mobs and rioters as an argument for what civilians should be allowed to own, you'd be better off appealing for batons, tear gas grenades, and water canons in every household.