Automatic weapons have to be registered and after 1986 the sale to the public has been banned. Scalia wrote in Heller that 2nd amendment applies only to handheld weapons. He said it doesn't include tanks or cannons but could include a hand held rocket launcher. He said their are limits like where you can possess the gun and you can't scare people with it. His opinion said they would evaluate what type of hand held weapons as they come to court. So like how the abortion laws have been challenged, why no meaningful challenge of automatic weapons?

Dan Scott said:

---

Automatic weapons have to be registered and after 1986 the sale to the public has been banned. Scalia wrote in Heller that 2nd amendment applies only to handheld weapons. He said it doesn't include tanks or cannons but could include a hand held rocket launcher. He said their are limits like where you can possess the gun and you can't scare people with it. His opinion said they would evaluate what type of hand held weapons as they come to court. So like how the abortion laws have been challenged, why no meaningful challenge of automatic weapons?

---

Read the opinion. It will educate you.

Simple as this

There is a bigger push to prevent murdering babies than getting fully automatic weapons legal

Of course auto weapons should be legal same as abortion should be illegal, but priority is preventing murder

Thank you for your useful and informative post.

Because the 2A exists to allow the people weapons with which they can defend against and then overthrow a tyrannical government

HTH

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Because the 2A exists to allow the people weapons with which they can defend against and then overthrow a tyrannical government

HTH

---

So you're saying people don't need automatic weapons?

Dan Scott said:

---

Thank you for your useful and informative post.

---

What part of Scalia's opinion do you not understand? Seriously, instead of inviting open-ended vague debate/Tanya cat facts, cite the part that confuses you.

Because the ATF is a bunch of meanies who want to spoil our fun

Dan Scott said:

---

Automatic weapons have to be registered and after 1986 the sale to the public has been banned. Scalia wrote in Heller that 2nd amendment applies only to handheld weapons. He said it doesn't include tanks or cannons but could include a hand held rocket launcher. He said their are limits like where you can possess the gun and you can't scare people with it. His opinion said they would evaluate what type of hand held weapons as they come to court. So like how the abortion laws have been challenged, why no meaningful challenge of automatic weapons?

---

I think you're miss-understanding the law for full auto weapons.

Under the current NFA laws full auto "machine guns" are legal. It has to be made before 1986 and you have to file a ATF firm 4 to transfer it to you. Then you wait for ATF approval, pay your fee and you own a machine gun legally.

Or you get an FFL.

Again, Dan loves everything Scalia has ever written or spoken when it comes to constitutional issues and therefore aligns himself with scalia's thinking. Greatest evolution of political thought in texags' history. We should all commend him.

Scalia is wrong...."shall not be infringed" is pretty friggin clear.

Quote:

---

Automatic weapons have to be registered and after 1986 the sale to the public has been banned.

---

Weapons made before 1986 on the registry (thank you Ronald ReaGUNs) can be legally transferred.

Quote:

---

So like how the abortion laws have been challenged, why no meaningful challenge of automatic weapons?

---

Congress can fix that.
But alas, our system is not efficent.
No $$$$ in it like bridges to nowhere, PPP or Build Back Be$$er.

Dan Scott said:

---

Automatic weapons have to be registered and after 1986 the sale to the public has been banned. Scalia wrote in Heller that 2nd amendment applies only to handheld weapons. He said it doesn't include tanks or cannons but could include a hand held rocket launcher. He said their are limits like where you can possess the gun and you can't scare people with it. His opinion said they would evaluate what type of hand held weapons as they come to court. So like how the abortion laws have been challenged, why no meaningful challenge of automatic weapons?

---

Some erroneously bad info in here. Automatic weapons are not banned, but their transfer is regulated by the NFA and limited to weapons build before 1986. Also, weapons like tanks (with operating guns) and cannons are and have been owned by private citizens and continue to be, and likewise by NFA transfer process.

The public never supported NFA restrictions on all semiautomatic firearms because 1.) so many firearms are and 2.) doing so the government can stop anyone from buying a Beretta or Remington shotgun for a year or more while they sit on your NFA application. The semiautomatic designation is way too broad.

So, educate yourself on the facts, and read Heller. Great read.

And comparison to abortion laws is a non sequitur.

I always figured the army would provide those and the training when I reported for militia duty with my AR. In the meantime I'll just stay proficient with my infantry weapon that meshes with the military.

Dan Scott said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

Because the 2A exists to allow the people weapons with which they can defend against and then overthrow a tyrannical government

HTH

---

So you're saying people don't need automatic weapons?

---

I think they should be more accessible.

Dan Scott said:

---

Automatic weapons have to be registered and after 1986 the sale to the public has been banned. Scalia wrote in Heller that 2nd amendment applies only to handheld weapons. He said it doesn't include tanks or cannons but could include a hand held rocket launcher. He said their are limits like where you can possess the gun and you can't scare people with it. His opinion said they would evaluate what type of hand held weapons as they come to court. So like how the abortion laws have been challenged, why no meaningful challenge of automatic weapons?

---

Because the government wants the advantage of fully-auto firearms when considering a conflict with an armed populace

The court has always regarded machine guns and automated weapons as "offensive" rather than "defensive". Hand guns, single shot rifles, etc are deemed "defensive". I know there is a lot of wiggle room here, but that is the nature of the law.

If the courts rule that the AK-47 is an offensive weapon, in nature, then it too will be outlawed.

Dan makes a fair point. The 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon in the case of real "weapons of war". MOST people don't want full auto weapons as available as semi. It's not an absurd leap to question whether an AR 15, which is about as lethal as M16 A2, should be as accessible as other semi automatics.

So swing and a miss. Guess we wont see Dan on this thread again.

IslanderAg04 said:

---

So swing and a miss. Guess we wont see Dan on this thread again.

---

I'm here and reading.

Dan Scott said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

So swing and a miss. Guess we wont see Dan on this thread again.

---

I'm here and reading.

---

So do you understand that full auto weapons are legal within the current nfa?

Fyi, but you can literally own a tank. Theyve also had figter jets for sale on ebay. 15 million you could have bought a decommissioned blue angel a few years back.

Fully auto are illegal to keep us from going bankrupt on ammo.

OP made up almost all of that post.

Very wrong info he's claiming about Heller

BMX Bandit said:

---

OP made up almost all of that post.

Very wrong info he's claiming about Heller

---

Here is Scalia talking about it. How did I misrepresent his opinion?

IslanderAg04 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

IslanderAg04 said:

---

So swing and a miss. Guess we wont see Dan on this thread again.

---

I'm here and reading.

---

So do you understand that full auto weapons are legal within the current nfa?

Fyi, but you can literally own a tank. Theyve also had figter jets for sale on ebay. 15 million you could have bought a decommissioned blue angel a few years back.

---

Ok but still very regulated. Which goes back to the purpose of my thread in asking why automatic is so regulated but not semi? I'm sure you don't want to got through the hassles of owning an automatic as a semi so why hasn't it been challenged

Again, put in writing what part of his opinion confuses you.

nortex97 said:

---

Again, put in writing what part of his opinion confuses you.

---

Ok. I will take the time to go read it rather than listen to the man talk about it himself or have somebody on the forum that has read it to inform me.

Dan Scott said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Again, put in writing what part of his opinion confuses you.

---

Ok. I will take the time to go read it rather than listen to the man talk about it himself or have somebody on the forum that has read it to inform me.

---

Thanks. I'd hate to think you are just trolling.

nortex97 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Again, put in writing what part of his opinion confuses you.

---

Ok. I will take the time to go read it rather than listen to the man talk about it himself or have somebody on the forum that has read it to inform me.

---

Thanks. I'd hate to think you are just trolling.

---

Nope. Been watching NRA convention and reading posts on Texags and even on this thread quoting "shall not be infringed" yet it is infringed for automatics and nobody is making a big beef so I'm asking why. It's as simple as that.

BigRobSA said:

---

Scalia is wrong...."shall not be infringed" is pretty friggin clear.

---

Individual rights vs collective rights is still a debate in play. Some believe that certain weapons could be owned if you are a member of a state guard (militia), which is the focus of the first part of 2A. Of course everyone has the right to own a weapon to defend themselves, but the idea of well regulated militia is to defend against a tyrannical government. It would have been more clear if they would have stated …"AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Or just have the 2A just stated the second part about the right of the people (or even more specific the right of the individual instead of "people". People think it's very clear but it's written in the same somewhat broad form of the others

You said it was written in Heller. Not what Scalia said on a talk show.

You made up what Heller says

Dan Scott said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Again, put in writing what part of his opinion confuses you.

---

Ok. I will take the time to go read it rather than listen to the man talk about it himself or have somebody on the forum that has read it to inform me.

---

Thanks. I'd hate to think you are just trolling.

---

Nope. Been watching NRA convention and reading posts on Texags and even on this thread quoting "shall not be infringed" yet it is infringed for automatics and nobody is making a big beef so I'm asking why. It's as simple as that.

---

So you're trolling. None of that drivel has anything to do with Scalia's Heller opinion, which obviously you haven't read. Flagged and moving on.

93MarineHorn said:

---

Dan makes a fair point. The 2nd Amendment has been infringed upon in the case of real "weapons of war". MOST people don't want full auto weapons as available as semi. It's not an absurd leap to question whether an AR 15, which is about as lethal as M16 A2, shouldt be as accessible as other semi automatics.

---

I respect your posts but I'm completely against this. You give into progressives even an inch, they'll book the win and keep pushing. It's how they're wired. You never give any ground to those insidious ****s, NEVER!

Damn it, if you're even entertaining the thought, then it looks like I'll be shopping this weekend.

BMX Bandit said:

---

You said it was written in Heller. Not what Scalia said on a talk show.

You made up what Heller says

---

Really that's your beef? In the video, Scalia the author of the opinion says, "what the opinion in heller said." He then goes on to say what I summarized in my original post.

nortex97 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Again, put in writing what part of his opinion confuses you.

---

Ok. I will take the time to go read it rather than listen to the man talk about it himself or have somebody on the forum that has read it to inform me.

---

Thanks. I'd hate to think you are just trolling.

---

Nope. Been watching NRA convention and reading posts on Texags and even on this thread quoting "shall not be infringed" yet it is infringed for automatics and nobody is making a big beef so I'm asking why. It's as simple as that.

---

So you're trolling. None of that drivel has anything to do with Scalia's Heller opinion, which obviously you haven't read. Flagged and moving on.

---

So nobody on this thread that has read the opinion wants to answer the question? That's odd. Instead they are throwing fits over small details that don't take away from the intent of the question.