Hacker News Reader

Comment by 15155 | Hacker News Reader

> Gun manufacturers somehow don't get sued into oblivion for how their products are used.

Intentional liability shields have been legally enshrined for arms manufacturers (and for good reason.)

> well-regulated militia

Can you please never repeat this line of reasoning again? This is well-settled jurisprudence, the most anti-2A SCOTUS Justices over the last 30 years unanimously agree individual arms ownership is a right (Caetano v Massachusetts), this fact is not in dispute: "well-regulated" means "in good working order," not "restricted."

Constitutionally-enshrined rights don't change because the English language happens to evolve in 200 years.

View on HN

For many originalists "well-regulated" can mean "uniformed", as in the British "regulars" or regular army as opposed to local militia who were not provided uniforms. Remember that until very recently a soldier's given coat was normally worth more than his weapon. So much context has been lost to history.

Edit: I just did some googling. A decent British army redcoat costume still costs more today than a brand new AR-15.

In my opinion the word “regulated” is used in the same spooky way “unlimited” is with cell service plans.

“Unlimited” (until you hit a limit then we limit your bandwidth)

The Court was clear in Heller that "no right is unlimited," but that still does not mean that reinterpreting this specific, independent 200-year-old clause is what would legally enable regulation of the right to bear arms.

The "well-regulated militia" argument was quickly defused by the Court because these people are actual legal scholars with extensive, relevant English and history educations.

I do not disagree

I think what I wrote sounded much like an anti-gun argument, and many people are highly sensitized to that, so it wasn't a good choice on my part.

My intended point was that, although this brand seems to be marketing adjacent to civilian "tactical" firearms enthusiasm, and maybe emboldened by conventions in that product category, I suspect it doesn't have the same protections.

In hindsight, I should've asked that as a question.

I read their comment more along the lines of a statement that robut-dog flamethrowers wouldn't pass the "common use" test of Heller

Is there any Founding-era historical legal precedent (Bruen) regulating or banning this type of arm that one carries on his person for offensive or defensive action?

Why are we constraining it to Founding-era, when the document is meant to be a living document (hence amendments in the first place)?

I.e., I don't hear people lamenting about the need for "Founding-era" precedent when it comes to suffrage rights

> Why are we constraining it to Founding-era

I wasn't a part of the NYSRPA v Bruen voting decision, you're welcome to read the jurists' extraordinarily well-written opinions regarding the law of the land here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf

Even if this document is intended to be a "living document," it should be changed through that amendment process, not executive edicts or regular statutes. Good luck.

> I don't hear people lamenting about the need for "Founding-era" precedent when it comes to suffrage rights

Perhaps because this was increasing liberty (rather than restricting it) and actually happened via Constitutional amendment?

I don't believe they did constrain themselves in that manner. As the quote below seems to indicate, they allowed their research to go beyond the "Founding era"

"First, we reviewed “[t]hree important founding-era legal scholars [who] interpreted the Second Amendment in published writings.” Ibid. Second, we looked to “19th-century cases that interpreted the Second Amendment...”"

>it should be changed through that amendment process

I think we agree here. Not saying you hold this position, but there does often seem to be a bias for favored causes, though. E.g., constrained to using the amendment process when it comes to limiting gun rights, but no such argument when it comes to edicts that limit voting rights. I would just like to see consistency in thought/principle (again, not claiming you take a biased view).

>Perhaps because this was adding additional liberty

So just to stress test this idea, you would be in favor of any additional liberty that went through the amendment process? E.g., would you think it beneficial to allow citizens rights to nuclear procurement as long as it went through an amendment process? Or reducing the voting age to 10 years old? I.e., do you tend to think more liberty is always better?

> limit voting rights.

The Constitution does very little to regulate voting or define the election process: substantial responsibilities are placed upon the States and Congress to establish the parameters around the exercise of this specific right.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is highly explicit and unambiguous. (without delving into the legal shitshow that is "shall"..)

> So just to stress test this idea

This sounds dangerously like the setup to a strawman generalization: I was postulating specifically on suffrage and why people might not be presently "lamenting" a widely-accepted-as-positive increase to liberty.

> you would be in favor of any additional liberty that went through the amendment process?

Generally, yes! I trust our 50 state legislatures to make the right choices. All of these hypotheticals probably would never survive the process: whether I alone think it's "beneficial" isn't relevant.

>widely-accepted-as-positive increase to liberty.

This is applying a hindsight bias. Do you think it was widely-accepted-as-a-positive when first implemented? Similarly, I don’t know that we can pretend to know a-priori whether changes to the status quo on gun rights may be seen as a “widely” accepted positive or negative.

I think your personal opinion is relevant because it gives context. Forums aren’t the greatest when it comes to nuanced discussion, and understanding someones thought process helps to understand if they take an appropriately nuanced view. When it’s clear they do not, there’s not much interest in further discussion because they lose some credibility.

> Do you think it was widely-accepted-as-a-positive when first implemented?

No, but again we were talking about the present.

> we can pretend to know a-priori whether changes to the status quo on gun rights

We don't need to pretend, thankfully: we have mountains of historical data on arms regulation we can cite - many of these regulations currently exist or existed for some substantial amount of time (and possibly ran/run afoul of current liberty-preserving SCOTUS 2A interpretation.)

The typical argument is: "Well, if we just banned them all it would work! We didn't go far enough, that's why!"

If this were a widely accepted idea, we would have ratified an amendment repealing the Second already.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com