Minnesota's Proposed "Assault Weapon" Bans (2024)

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are
peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Alexander Hamilton
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms in, as a last resort, to
protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -Thomas Jefferson
“The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.” – Thomas
Jefferson
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to
commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they
serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater
confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson
“Disarm the people- that is the best and most effective way to enslave them.” – James Madison
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and
ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which
would include their own government." – George Washington
“Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.” – Benjamin Franklin


The people who wrote it explained a lot already.
I just thought the TJ "beauty" quote was an interesting choice of words from Tom, so I spent 60 seconds looking into it. Bummed that it was not accurate. :p

Carry on.
 
I just thought the TJ "beauty" quote was an interesting choice of words from Tom, so I spent 60 seconds looking into it. Bummed that it was not accurate. :p

Carry on.
Ah well none of it matters, including the rest of the quotes or the founders/framers consistency on the topic - It says regulated 🤷‍♂️
 
Nothing unique about 2A - it is across the culture these days. We are now governed by social media crafted narratives, not reality.
Do you feel that hatespeech should be restricted? Or does the first amendment supercede that?
 
Do you feel that hatespeech should be restricted? Or does the first amendment supercede that?
I don't think the govt should be able to prevent speech unless is creates a direct threat of physical harm to another. I find hate speech and hate crime laws too ambiguous to be useful in the long run. We already have sufficient tools to punish violence and the inciting of violence. I do not equate hurtful words with physical harm.

FWIW - time, place, and manner boundaries are ok with me. I love the 1A even more than the 2A, yet it too is not absolute.
 
You need to read more history, the founders were neither that aligned or claravoient.

I am a 2A supporter, but if the founders actually had their sh*t together on this topic they would have written a proper coherent sentence to cover it. Also, unlikely most had any interest in it covering state laws, as many of their own states had their own firearm rules.

I'm not inclined to weigh in on this debate generally, but this did ring a bell with me.

For a good number of years, I was the chairman of the union for wage employees at the oil refinery, where I worked. There were numerous passages in the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) that were worded in a manner that each side could interpret as meaning what they wanted a certain issue to be. Most of the time each side knew there was much to lose, if they pressed too hard on exactly what was meant by the language.
 
I'm not inclined to weigh in on this debate generally, but this did ring a bell with me.

For a good number of years, I was the chairman of the union for wage employees at the oil refinery, where I worked. There were numerous passages in the CBA (collective bargaining agreement) that were worded in a manner that each side could interpret as meaning what they wanted a certain issue to be. Most of the time each side knew there was much to lose, if they pressed too hard on exactly what was meant by the language.
As a lawyer (not labor) I have seen it in action many times - and it drives me nuts.
 
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It's pretty cut and dry to me.
Are we relying on constitutional law now? Great!

The Heller decision--which by the way the NRA did NOT even support taking to trial--and for the first time clarified the constitutional rights extended to personal individual protection, not just militia's--clearly stated the constitutional right is NOT unlimited, and that some restrictions on use and ownership were allowed.

So--no, not cut and dried at all--in the cases we are talking about for binary triggers and buying a gun for someone else that is legally barred from ownership.

The way some are talking here anyone should be able to buy a gun and give it to a convicted person who is not allowed to own one, and we should probably be legalizing fully auto machine guns too.

Where does it end if you (mistakenly) insist any regulations conflict with the constitutional right?
 
Madison wrote the first draft in the House, but that was dropped and revised several times and then further in the senate - Madison’s draft had verbiage about not compelling service in the militia for those with religious objections (quakers) - suggesting he viewed the language as a right to form a proper militia, not personal. But in the end that is not the language that was adopted so that doesn’t control.

As for 2nd in order that isn’t really relevant to the open questions as it may suggest importance or may suggest nothing, but in either case it doesn’t address personal vs state militia intent.

And even if it read unequivocally, “every person can have a gun for any reason” it still doesn’t mean there would be no guns controls, as every one of the rights under the bill of rights is subject to some infringements/regulation. So the question would still remain, how much is too much.

Personally I am fine with some current rules (felon restrictions for example) and not with others (suppressors under NFA is really stupid). But just like abortion this has become an all or nothing blood feud with little intelligent discussion possible. And in the case of guns - it is one we will almost certainly lose over time unless there is some moderation to regain suburban soccer mom support.
Heres what he wrote in the fedarlist papers : (james madison)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Seems like to me he was suggesting people have an individua right to arms.
 
Are we relying on constitutional law now? Great!

The Heller decision--which by the way the NRA did NOT even support taking to trial--and for the first time clarified the constitutional rights extended to personal individual protection, not just militia's--clearly stated the constitutional right is NOT unlimited, and that some restrictions on use and ownership were allowed.

So--no, not cut and dried at all--in the cases we are talking about for binary triggers and buying a gun for someone else that is legally barred from ownership.

The way some are talking here anyone should be able to buy a gun and give it to a convicted person who is not allowed to own one, and we should probably be legalizing fully auto machine guns too.

Where does it end if you (mistakenly) insist any regulations conflict with the constitutional right?
The Supreme Court ruled several years after Heller, (McDonald vs The City of Chicago), that the right to keep and bear arms was a "fundamental right", and extended beyond self-defense in one's home. There was several other cases afterwards that solidified it even more.

I'm not vying for criminals to have firearms, nor to allow people who aren't allowed to possess them. Straw purchases have been going on forever. We have no gun database in the U.S. (contrary to popular belief) unless the weapon was used in a crime. The only thing that tells the government that you have a firearm at all is on the 4473 form you filled out at the FFL. The FFL is required to retain that document indefinitely unless the ATF asks for it.

I pose a question to you. Where do the REGULATIONS end? If you give them an inch they'll take a mile. The legislators (primarily on the left) but some on the right could give a rats ass about violence in their respective states, especially when doesn't affect them directly. It's all about disarming people and taking the "scary" AR's and black guns away.
 
Heres what he wrote in the fedarlist papers : (james madison)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Seems like to me he was suggesting people have an individua right to arms.
Madison, and many other, wasn't a fan of a Federal standing army. To them, that was the risk to freedoms. A lot of the 2A has to be viewed in that context. In theory, America was to defend itself from an invasion by individual citizens grabbing their guns and running to fight. Hence "well regulated" meant trained and organized. Image if we tried that today. We would lose to Grenada. Also, there were a hodgepodge of state and local gun laws that were pretty stringent and used to ensure things like the "well regulated militia" term. The whole idea is a paradox and Hamilton argued both sides of the coin (militia vs standing army).

I wish we would stop trying to argue what was thought and envisioned in the late 1700's by a group of rich guys who largely couldn't agree on anything but the broad concepts of Freedom and Liberty seeming like a good idea. None of us know what they would think today.
 
Heres what he wrote in the fedarlist papers : (james madison)

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Seems like to me he was suggesting people have an individua right to arms.
You keep straying off. The federalist papers are great, but they were written and published by 3 men of the hundreds that were involved in BoR discussions and ratification a decade later - and the FP were actually antagonistic to the suggestion of a BoR in the first place.

And while Madison did a first draft of the 2A, his version was never adopted and as I said earlier his version made it even less clear it is a personal right.

Question for you - the BoR drafters and ratifiers clearly wrote "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Why not use the same type of direct language in the 2A? The 1A would be much messier if they had said, "A free press being essential to a free nation, speech of the people shall not be infringed". Whose speech? The presses? The people as quoted in the press? It is a dumb way to write. Hence the 2A is a mess.

I don't find it hard to say the 2A is a linguistic mess, and there were a variety of opinions in the 1790s as to the topic, yet in 2024 I believe the correct reading of the messy wording and messy history is that Heller got it right. Why do we feel compelled to argue it is clearer than it is? Why do we cite quotes by those who were not involved, taken out time, taken out of context, made up entirely? Cite quotes from the floors of Congress and the legislative assemblies that ratified it while debating that text - that is what would be useful and compelling.
 
You keep straying off. The federalist papers are great, but they were written and published by 3 men of the hundreds that were involved in BoR discussions and ratification a decade later - and the FP were actually antagonistic to the suggestion of a BoR in the first place.

And while Madison did a first draft of the 2A, his version was never adopted and as I said earlier his version made it even less clear it is a personal right.

Question for you - the BoR drafters and ratifiers clearly wrote "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Why not use the same type of direct language in the 2A? The 1A would be much messier if they had said, "A free press being essential to a free nation, speech of the people shall not be infringed". Whose speech? The presses? The people as quoted in the press? It is a dumb way to write. Hence the 2A is a mess.

I don't find it hard to say the 2A is a linguistic mess, and there were a variety of opinions in the 1790s as to the topic, yet in 2024 I believe the correct reading of the messy wording and messy history is that Heller got it right. Why do we feel compelled to argue it is clearer than it is? Why do we cite quotes by those who were not involved, taken out time, taken out of context, made up entirely? Cite quotes from the floors of Congress and the legislative assemblies that ratified it while debating that text - that is what would be useful and compelling.
How am i straying off exactly? You specifically said that he didnt believe in an armed general population - i provided evidence thats contrary.
 
You keep straying off. The federalist papers are great, but they were written and published by 3 men of the hundreds that were involved in BoR discussions and ratification a decade later - and the FP were actually antagonistic to the suggestion of a BoR in the first place.

And while Madison did a first draft of the 2A, his version was never adopted and as I said earlier his version made it even less clear it is a personal right.

Question for you - the BoR drafters and ratifiers clearly wrote "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press . . ." Why not use the same type of direct language in the 2A? The 1A would be much messier if they had said, "A free press being essential to a free nation, speech of the people shall not be infringed". Whose speech? The presses? The people as quoted in the press? It is a dumb way to write. Hence the 2A is a mess.

I don't find it hard to say the 2A is a linguistic mess, and there were a variety of opinions in the 1790s as to the topic, yet in 2024 I believe the correct reading of the messy wording and messy history is that Heller got it right. Why do we feel compelled to argue it is clearer than it is? Why do we cite quotes by those who were not involved, taken out time, taken out of context, made up entirely? Cite quotes from the floors of Congress and the legislative assemblies that ratified it while debating that text - that is what would be useful and compelling.
The largest question i have - what is wrong with stopping the atf from making these decisions without congress? Pistol braces, binary triggers, bump stocks - none of that is within their perview to act on unless it is specifically provided in an act/amendment. This is where i guess you likely call me "absolutist"

If congress were to pass a bump stock ban - i say go ahead. But theres a lot of other things that compromise isnt safe from history (gca of 1934).
 
How am i straying off exactly? You specifically said that he didnt believe in an armed general population - i provided evidence thats contrary.
I did not say he didn't believe in an armed general population. I said his draft of the 2A appeared more focused an organized militia from its own words and also said it doesn't really matter what he was thinking as his draft was rejected.

That is how you are straying off - you made up in your mind what I was saying instead of sticking to my actual words.

You also provided quotes by folks not even involved in the 2A drafting, quotes that are in fact not even real quotes, quotes a decade before the 2A by folks who didn't even want a BoR - so yes, you stray to keep your narrative.

You have several strong 2A supporters on a pro-hunting website who aren't even convinced by your personal narrative, you are going to have to up your game to convince the 2A skeptics out there. Start by fully reading history and less quote grabbing. You may want to start by reading the big 2A SCOTUS decisions INCLUDING the dissents. Get through all of that and you will see clarity is not reality.
 
Last edited:
The largest question i have - what is wrong with stopping the atf from making these decisions without congress? Pistol braces, binary triggers, bump stocks - none of that is within their perview to act on unless it is specifically provided in an act/amendment. This is where i guess you likely call me "absolutist"

If congress were to pass a bump stock ban - i say go ahead. But theres a lot of other things that compromise isnt safe from history (gca of 1934).
I absolutely hate administrative agency overreach in all spaces. ATF included. I also hate that, unlike in citizen to citizen interactions, the agencies aren't bound by the clear expectations created by their earlier decisions. (i.e., estoppel). I ride with Gorsuch on his grave concern over our leviathan regulatory state. But this too strays from the topic ;)
 
Are we relying on constitutional law now? Great!

The Heller decision--which by the way the NRA did NOT even support taking to trial--and for the first time clarified the constitutional rights extended to personal individual protection, not just militia's--clearly stated the constitutional right is NOT unlimited, and that some restrictions on use and ownership were allowed.

So--no, not cut and dried at all--in the cases we are talking about for binary triggers and buying a gun for someone else that is legally barred from ownership.

The way some are talking here anyone should be able to buy a gun and give it to a convicted person who is not allowed to own one, and we should probably be legalizing fully auto machine guns too.

Where does it end if you (mistakenly) insist any regulations conflict with the constitutional right?
Fully automatic machine guns are legal. Just don’t want people to get the wrong idea. Love me some belt fed.
 
Fully automatic machine guns are legal. Just don’t want people to get the wrong idea. Love me some belt fed.
Should have known and said legalize them for everyone. Of course not everyone can make it through or even abide by the extensive background check needed to get an ATF permit. Or find one that's pre 86 so they can possess it.
 

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,754
Messages
1,969,026
Members
35,308
Latest member
MTStrauch
Back
Top