I mean just look at the man’s sweet face!
I’m sure his mama would never take away his happy stick.
I mean he can obviously bear it, right? And it is an arm, right? I don’t see what else we need to know, but Pete keeps mentioning something called Heller v. DC. Some kind of “case” with arguments about the Constitution, with people going on and on for thirty or so pages, even quoting dictionaries!
July 29th, 2012 | 11:07 pm
I’m not sure where you are going on this post, but it makes for shocking and hilarious material.
I have grown up around guns, have shot them and been trained in them. I like to shoot guns, and still understand the immense danger they represent.
A free people need guns, but so does a well regulated militia. The Heller decision allowed for an individual right to bear arms–the right of the people to bear arms. As Pete said, it was silent regarding local or federal regulations. Even the federal government can regulate. It depends on the use, the situation, the context, etc. etc.
I don’t think government regulation of guns represents the most danger toward liberty and human dignity. So I take my fight elsewhere, but that said I’m all for a reasonable defense of gun ownership.
July 30th, 2012 | 12:00 am
John, you must be one of those folks who don’t think judges should utilize empathy. Take your rationalistic blind-fold off, sir, and tell me how you could think it right or Constitutional to snatch this man’s prize possession out of his hands.
July 30th, 2012 | 8:49 am
I don’t know or care whether that’s real or photoshopped, but that is 100% awesome. I have never owned a gun and doubt I ever will, unlike most of my neighbors currently, but I say any gun control legislation should make clear that if you make it yourself, it’s cool to own it…That policy should apply to most everything, come to think of it…
July 30th, 2012 | 9:40 am
Here’s what he’s holding, yes it’s real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahti_L-39
You don’t just walk into a gun store and buy one across the counter – it’s a Destructive Device, regulated under the National Firearms Act – there’s federal registration and a $200 tax to be paid – there’s links that explain it all in the article above.
July 30th, 2012 | 1:04 pm
Steve is correct.
On the other hand such destructive devices are banned in California, and many other states(Ohio I think), as our government has largely taken to regulating CAFE standards thru a less hands on approach.
I mean lets call a spade a spade, that thing is a Vehicle Killer! It will stop a Hummer dead in its tracks. If you wanted to take out an armoured money delivery truck it would be ideal.
Brinks is not happy:(, and the delivery drivers who would be unphased by your toy AR-15, would suddenly be worried if that thing showed up.
So unless you are some of the people with fairly safe(those Brinks vehicles are actually extremely cool), “dangerous jobs” you aren’t too worried.
Also it goes without saying but that weapon is several levels above the whole body armor discussion. I am not sure the round in such a thing would have to actually hit you in order to kill you. In fact I am pretty sure you could miss by six inches and tear all the skin off a human face, and probably snap a neck that isn’t in the neighborhood of 18 inches. (I am not so sure, but lets just say that at a close enough range, concern about the shooters accuracy, takes on the aspects of a valid philosophical discussion.) So you could joke from the gallows, “I am not worried about the consequences of your hitting me, my concern is that you shoot like a girl and might miss.” Rumor has it some kills from 50 cal’s in afghanistan actually did that, and this weapon has more muzzle velocity and a larger round than the 50 cal.
In any case, possible ideological use?
Mount it on top of a Prius (with a sun roof) and do a drive by on all the gas-guzzlers in a Wal-Mart parking lot. (illegal in all 50 states).
Really other than marvelling at all the potentiality/power such a weapon has, just about all of its intended uses are illegal.
On the other hand maybe if you are a small ball entrepreneur in the military/police/security industrial complex (selling to Brinks) you get one to field test your up-armored products. But then in all likelyhood the ownership might be corporate.
July 30th, 2012 | 3:15 pm
Steven M, take a bow.
July 31st, 2012 | 8:41 am
It’s about time there’s an article that I’m intellectually capable of responding to (and not as a troll!).
You can own a destructive device in Ohio.
People own them by and large because they can, the same reason people own fancy cars and overpriced watches. Ammunition for most destructive devices isn’t available commercially(20mm Lahti isn’t on Wal-mart shelves). The original intended uses aside, most owners would just have this on display as a showpiece, perhaps rarely shooting it on private land. There’s easier ways to commit crimes than walking around with a 50KG gun.
July 31st, 2012 | 11:59 am
Steve M is right. He should take two bows,
Not only that, the state I didn’t hedge on was California and not Ohio. You can actually own DD’s in both states! (albeit the ammunition would certainly be more difficult in California…I am assuming because 50 cal ammunition is banned?)
So much for going from memory!
I suppose my rationalization goes like this, 1) I am not giving legal advice. 2) Common law excuse (a level of generality not applying to any particular state.) In general DD’s are banned, unless you fall under an exception.
One possibility is being a corporation.
As an individual there are two major exceptions.
The first one I touched upon: Being in the business. “military/police/security industrial complex (selling to Brinks)”.
The second one is that the weapon be classified as a Curio or Relic. i.e.,
“People own them by and large because they can, the same reason people own fancy cars and overpriced watches. Ammunition for most destructive devices isn’t available commercially(20mm Lahti isn’t on Wal-mart shelves). The original intended uses aside, most owners would just have this on display as a showpiece, perhaps rarely shooting it on private land.”
Good point. Except that just walking around with that weapon might be a crime. (avoid school zones and courthouses) Scalia mentioned the old Afrightment under the guise of carrying a large Axe Head, that actually falls under “disorderly conduct” today…or the tort of “assault” (causing a victim to apprehend the threat of immediate violence).
Assault weapons have other complications in terms of classifications(with independent legal significance), but in a common law sense an assault weapon may simply be any weapon which “threatens” or “assults”. (a handgun can be the instrumentality of the tort of assult, and thus an assult weapon, but it is not sufficiently “per se” threatning, to be classified as an assault weapon? ).
In general if you are commiting the tort of “assault” or if a police officer believes you are that is “disorderly conduct.”
So just walking around with a 50KG gun could in a literal sense be the easiest way to commit a crime. Disorderly conduct/assault, and a felony maybe if you walk into the wrong zone.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact