Man arrested at Univ of Kentucky Hospital with firearms, body armor and possible explosives

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#41
So you "suspect" he would his definition of the American "militia" in the 2nd Amendment as "the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty" would include rare and unique weapons at that time possibly used by other professional military of other nations.

LOL....No. Words have meaning. He said what he said.
Do you have any proof that repeating muskets were not a "lawful weapon that could be possessed at home"? By all means share it.

Scalia's words do have meaning, they indicate that semi-automatic weapons and even weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds are covered under the 2nd amendment. He said what he said.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#42
Do you have any proof that repeating muskets were not a "lawful weapon that could be possessed at home"? By all means share it.

Scalia's words do have meaning, they indicate that semi-automatic weapons and even weapons that can hold more than 10 rounds are covered under the 2nd amendment. He said what he said.
Jeezuz.

You are making an argument that "the sorts of lawful weapons they possessed at home to militia duty" could have meant the types of guns that even you yourself admit were rare and unique and not possessed or used by the US military at the time.

Furthermore, if words have meaning....and you agree words have meaning....why did you feel compelled to change the words he actually said?

This is nonsense, and you know it's nonsense, and that's why you changed

"the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty" to

"lawful weapon that could be possessed at home".

Those are not the same thing. They aren't even all that close.
 
Last edited:

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#43
For the record, I don't believe in assault weapon bans as effective policy.

Not because they are unconstitutional (we had one for 10 years and it was consistently upheld as constitutional)...they can easily be written in a manner meeting constitutional muster.

IMO, they're not good policy because they don't have an appreciable effect on violent crime....as shown by multiple studies following the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#44
the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty"
Tell me how this statement excludes repeating muskets. He didn't say common weapons or readily available weapons or widely accepted weapons. He said lawful weapons. You're arguing that words matter but somehow also arguing that they don't.

Repeating muskets were a thing before the founders were even born, they weren't some new novelty that showed up in circus side shows. The continental Congress ordered a hundred of them but the war broke out before they could be delivered (or because compensation couldn't be agreed upon, 2 different sources).
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#46
Tell me how this statement excludes repeating muskets. He didn't say common weapons or readily available weapons or widely accepted weapons. He said lawful weapons. You're arguing that words matter but somehow also arguing that they don't.

Repeating muskets were a thing before the founders were even born, they weren't some new novelty that showed up in circus side shows. The continental Congress ordered a hundred of them but the war broke out before they could be delivered (or because compensation couldn't be agreed upon, 2 different sources).
It absolutely does indicate/say common weapons or readily available weapons or widely accepted weapons.

The type of legal weapons that they actually brought from their homes to militia duty....is the very definition of common weapons/readily available weapons/widely accepted weapons.

You want to ignore the entire rest of the statement and focus on whether individuals could have conceivably had a legal right to own those at the time? Fine...I'll quote you more Scalia where he explicitly says the 2nd Amendment right is specifically only applicable to common weapons/readily available weapons/widely accepted weapons at the time of the drafting.

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980)

Heck he even comments and acknowledges that DC v. Heller would not serve to bar bans on M-16s and the like and explains why...

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
 
Last edited:

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#47
It absolutely does indicate/say common weapons or readily available weapons or widely accepted weapons.

The type of legal weapons that they actually brought from their homes to militia duty....is the very definition of common weapons/readily available weapons/widely accepted weapons.

You want to ignore the entire rest of the statement and focus on whether individuals could have conceivably had a legal right to own those at the time? Fine...I'll quote you more Scalia where he explicitly says the 2nd Amendment right is specifically only applicable to common weapons/readily available weapons/widely accepted weapons at the time of the drafting.

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980)

Heck he even comments and acknowledges that DC v. Heller would not serve to bar bans on M-16s and the like and explains why...

"It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right."
A few final thoughts.
M-16 =/= AR-15. M-16s are pretty much illegal already. I actually believe you are already aware of this but just pointing it out in case someone else doesn't.

History is full of examples of poorly trained poorly armed groups fighting professional militaries. Just ask the soviet union about afghanistan or the us about vietnam.

Even if the repeating musket was not the common type of legal weapon that might be kept at home and brought to use in military service in the 18th century...the AR-15 in the 21st century currently IS.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#48
Even if the repeating musket was not the common type of legal weapon that might be kept at home and brought to use in military service in the 18th century...the AR-15 in the 21st century currently IS.
I think you’re missing the point here. The constitutionality of prohibiting what is lawful today is the subject we’re discussing. We shouldn’t base that on what is currently lawful. If we did that, we’d never change any laws. The founders couldn’t anticipate the weapons we would have today. You’re misapplying Scalia’s statement.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#49
I think you’re missing the point here. The constitutionality of prohibiting what is lawful today is the subject we’re discussing. We shouldn’t base that on what is currently lawful. If we did that, we’d never change any laws. The founders couldn’t anticipate the weapons we would have today. You’re misapplying Scalia’s statement.
We've already established that the founders could anticipate semi-automatic weapons and weapons that held more than 10 rounds. Those types of firearms existed before the founders were even born.
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#50
We've already established that the founders could anticipate semi-automatic weapons and weapons that held more than 10 rounds. Those types of firearms existed before the founders were even born.
I shouldn’t have given you that rabbit to chase. Let me say it another way. Scalia wasn’t basing his opinion on what they would anticipate. It was based on what citizens would possess at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
10,914
4,293
743
#51
We've already established that the founders could anticipate semi-automatic weapons and weapons that held more than 10 rounds. Those types of firearms existed before the founders were even born.
I shouldn’t have given you that rabbit to chase. Let me say it another way. Scalia wasn’t basing his opinion on what they would anticipate. It was based on what citizens would possess at the time the 2nd amendment was drafted.
So we can only have muskets now. Got it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
 

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#52
So we can only have muskets now. Got it.

Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
Oh, hey straw man! Sorry, I didn’t see you there. No. I’m saying it’s circular reasoning to decide what should be legal based solely on what is currently legal. As JD mentioned, this is really about what could be deemed constitutional.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#53
Oh, hey straw man! Sorry, I didn’t see you there. No. I’m saying it’s circular reasoning to decide what should be legal based solely on what is currently legal. As JD mentioned, this is really about what could be deemed constitutional.
But aren't you saying that Scalia's words could be used to argue only single shot muskets are constitutional? I admit I may be missing your point.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#54
A few final thoughts.

1. M-16 =/= AR-15. M-16s are pretty much illegal already. I actually believe you are already aware of this but just pointing it out in case someone else doesn't.

2. History is full of examples of poorly trained poorly armed groups fighting professional militaries. Just ask the soviet union about afghanistan or the us about vietnam.

3. Even if the repeating musket was not the common type of legal weapon that might be kept at home and brought to use in military service in the 18th century...the AR-15 in the 21st century currently IS.
1. Except the opinion said "M-16s and the like", but yes I am aware that they are not one and the same....though they are pretty similar ("the like).

2. I am well aware of this.

3. The opinion of Scalia speaks to common weapons that were kept at home and brought to use in military service AT THE TIME of the writing/ratification of the Constitution. He's an originalist. Someone that is more of a "living document" interpreter of the Constitution could pretty much argue that the Constitution means whatever they think it means based upon the changing times and attitudes of society. Based upon our discussions I kind of doubt that you are all on board with the meaning of the Constitution changing with the times, i.e a "living document" guy. I could be wrong though. And yeah, this is a POLICY argument you're making here....what the law should be.

My entire point in this discussion has been policy discussions are distinct and different from Constitutional limits. In fact, I expressly said just because something would be constitutional to do doesn't make it a good idea or good policy.
 
Last edited:

TheMonkey

Sheriff
A/V Subscriber
Sep 16, 2004
4,947
2,259
1,743
46
DFW
#55
But aren't you saying that Scalia's words could be used to argue only single shot muskets are constitutional? I admit I may be missing your point.
I think it’s more nuanced than that, but technically it could be argued. I have no legal background, so I could be misinterpreting this. In the end, I think it’s more likely indicating the weapons necessary to arm a militia to defend against a government army are not protected by this amendment. Therefore there is a basis for banning weapons that would not typically/reasonably be used for self defense and hunting, per the intent of those who drafted the amendment.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#56
Except the opinion said "M-16s and the like", but yes I am aware that they are not one and the same....though they are pretty similar ("the like
They may look similar but one is fully automatic and one is semi automatic. That is a HUGE distinction when comparing weapons...not at all "the like".
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#57
They may look similar but one is fully automatic and one is semi automatic. That is a HUGE distinction when comparing weapons...not at all "the like".
That's certainly your opinion.

And I'm good with that....like I said, I'm not really interested in bantering over mere opinions.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,334
17,097
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#58
That's certainly your opinion.

And I'm good with that....like I said, I'm not really interested in bantering over mere opinions.
Well that's the problem with using "the like"...that phrase is open to different opinions.

I hope we can at least agree that when it comes to the constitution, we should ask the legal rulings to be more specific than that.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,388
20,476
1,743
#59
Well that's the problem with using "the like"...that phrase is open to different opinions.

I hope we can at least agree that when it comes to the constitution, we should ask the legal rulings to be more specific than that.
That is certainly open to to different opinions.

That portion of the opinion was dicta....not essential to the decision....more of an aside, anyways. The portion of the reasoning upon which the actual final holding/decision was made was sufficiently specific.
 

Brad M

Wrangler
Jan 16, 2017
157
113
93
57
Wisconsin
#60
I think it’s more nuanced than that, but technically it could be argued. I have no legal background, so I could be misinterpreting this. In the end, I think it’s more likely indicating the weapons necessary to arm a militia to defend against a government army are not protected by this amendment. Therefore there is a basis for banning weapons that would not typically/reasonably be used for self defense and hunting, per the intent of those who drafted the amendment.
That is EXACTLY the right that is protected by this amendment.