Parker/Heller set for argument

Thanks for the hard work!

In reading the briefs in support of DC, I'm noticing a lot of circular reasoning and several contradictions between the supporters themselves (for example, ‘regulated’ means subject to regulation in some briefs but has its more correct form in others). Additionally, there is a lot of fluff within the briefs that doesn’t seem to address the actual questions before the court. Nevertheless, there are some popular and thus convincing arguments. I hope our side has the same.

Question: Will the hearings be televised?

What if the "backpack nuke" is being used in a tactical role, like the nuclear demolitions the US deployed until the early 90s?

Does using a nuke instead of a high-altitude bomber to take out a bridge make it terrorism?

Kim du Toit has made a compelling argument on his site that the key distinction that can defeat most "horrible hypotheticals" is one made between weapons of the army and weapons of an individual soldier. The gist of it is that a cannon (to use an example from the founders' time) or a machine gun or an F-16 would not be a weapon that a soldier considered a personal arm, nor would it be a weapon that a member of the militia would ever be expected to provide for himself. Of course, individual, (relatively) inexpensive weapons like RPGs would still be borderline cases, but you can certainly knock off bombs, crew-served weapons, and bigger things like battleships with this argument.

I disagree with Kim's argument presented by JHHB. There are several historical examples of privately owned cannons used in defense of homes and towns. The first that comes to my mind is from texas' fight for independence from Mexico. I'll look up the historical references if needed.

Also, there is an active group of people building and target shooting cannons. Not to mention their use for black powder deerhunting. (see www.buckstix.com/). Nope, Kim's argument is no better than the ones trying to compare hi-cap mags in a 9mm semi-auto to muzzleloading muskets.

For a more serious look at the modern usage of cannons, look at www.steencannons.com and search for info on the Historical Artillery Match in Grayling, Michigan.

Or are we going to have a new acronym: EBC?
Evil Bronze Cannon.

As far as I am concerned fundamental rights should not be subject to prior restraint. If my next door neighbor wants to own and restore a sherman tank, have at it. As long as he keeps it off of my grass.

I know the story: The cannon was at the town of Gonzales, and when the Mexican Army came to take it away, the Texas Revolution started (late 1835). Of some note for the purposes of Constitutional argument is the fact that this took place in Mexico (of which Texas was at the time a part). But there are other examples from the American frontier that would be on point.

Kim's reading* might also not protect sporting shotguns and other hunting weapons.

But it doesn't have to.

The Constitution does not protect your right to wear a red hat. That doesn't mean we have to re-read amendments in order to protect red hats. Nor does it mean that we should amend the Constitution as soon as possible to protect the wearing of red hats. It means that we should be vigilant about the laws our legislators pass.

*(and I hate to quit paraphrasing him when he's not here to agree, since I might not be doing so accurately, so perhaps I should say my reading of Kim's reading)

**"quit" = "keep"

How are the people en masse supposed to resist tyranny solely with personal arms? The governement has F-16s and artillery. I guess the personal arms could act as a stop-gap while the people organized and aquired heavy weaponry. But I tend to think it would be better if we had a more independent milita/National Guard that was set aside solely for national defense and funded both privately and by the states, made up of enthusiasts.

As far as the F-16 though, I have no wonder whether the proper analogy isn't to a ship. I private ship could be armed, but the whole ship isn't a weapon. Only the cannon are. Why shouldn't people own high performance planes, perhaps with the idea that they can be armed against tyranny in the background?

Bobbo, individuals CAN own tactical aircraft and artillery.

There are a fair number of ex-military aircraft in private hands. Most of them are obsolescent, simply because the price tag on a modern combat machine is so high that even the United States Government has a hard time affording them in decent quantities. But the airplane is easy - you just have to deal with the FAA.

As for artillery, you just file the Form 4 with the ATF. Perfectly legal.

The real problem comes with ordnance...because each bomb or shell is itself a Destructive Device under the NFA - which means a $200 tax. On the other hand, even the Federal Government pays thousands of dollars for them, so the tax isn't that much of an issue.

That being said, I think that people have forgotten the lesson of the Iraq campaign. The US had a massive superiority in conventional weapons...and when the fight became a counterinsurgency campaign, much of that advantage was negated. And the sine qua non of a counterinsurgency campaign are small arms.

But there is one factor that I think gets lost...the Second Amendment establishes a reservior of force. Force useful for a range of purposes. Overthrow of a tyrranical government? Possibly. Deterrence of a would-be tyrant? More possibly. But the more likely uses are to equip wartime militia forces and peacetime posse groups. If there is a serious terrorist campaign in this country, the Government has the option to tap the Second Amendment and field overwhelming security forces. And that scenario is far more likely.