[Retric]

> So fast-firing weapons were not some alien technology.

Thrown stones are a fast firing deadly weapon. They, compressed air guns, and ball musket etc aren’t used by modern military forces in combat because they are less dangerous.

A rule that allows compressed air weapons yet bans percussion caps is quite reasonable and could pass constitutional scrutiny.

[ndriscoll]

It might be quite reasonable, but it would also quite clearly require an amendment to do in the US, which is what you originally replied to.

[Retric]

Grenades a clear requirement for a modern infantry are also banned, thus eliminating any argument that a modern standards of military efficiency apply.

Banding heavy machine guns yet another invention after the constitution was written didn’t, so there’s clear present this wouldn’t either.

[int_19h]

What makes you believe that grenades are banned in US? They are heavily taxed, yes - $200 per grenade - but they aren't banned on the federal level, and there are people who legally own such things.

[Retric]

“Possessing a live grenade is illegal.” https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-def...

Obviously there’s a bunch of exceptions, including as you point out the federal option of going through a background check and paying 200$/grenade. But that’s only at the federal level it doesn’t necessarily meet state requirements.

The rules on those background checks are as capricious as banning people who were dishonorably discharged from the military.

[int_19h]

They are not "exceptions". It's exactly as I wrote: possessing a live grenade is legal, subject only to paying the $200 tax and doing the associated paperwork for the feds. The illegal part is not paying the tax.

State laws are another matter entirely, but even many states with stringent gun laws don't ban DDs specifically (probably because many lawmakers are not aware that such things are legal).

As for the background checks, I own over a dozen NFA-regulated items including a destructive device (a 40mm grenade launcher), and I can't say that the rules aren't really any more onerous than they are for regular firearms. This particular bit about "banning people who were dishonorably discharged from the military" applies equally to any firearm transfer under federal jurisdiction, for example (e.g. buying across state lines, or within states that mandate a federal check for anything). As I recall, the only thing that stood out in NFA forms compared to the regular stuff was the need to submit fingerprints. That aside, it was smooth sailing even back when I wasn't a citizen. So really the only barrier is affordability, and AFAIK this is exactly how the NFA was intended to work back when it was designed ($200 was about 4x the price of a full auto gun like Thompson back then, so it basically made them outlandishly expensive, only available to the rich).

[Retric]

> firearm transfer under federal jurisdiction

A far looser restriction.

> doing the associated paperwork for the feds.

That implies that it’s guaranteed you will pass, which is false.

That said, the ability for some states to totally ban ownership outside of military or police rests on them not receiving constitutional protection.

[kube-system]

Except "it was made after the constitution was written" is a standard you've made up -- there is existing case law from SCOTUS that 2A protects guns "in common use"

[Retric]

Actually things that are new after the constitution was written is regularly brought up before the court it’s a very common argument. The thing was written a long time ago, everyone involved in the process acknowledges that fact. The degree to which papers applies to electronic data should be familiar to you.

Supreme court rulings are arbitrary as they regularly reverse or update standards, sometimes multiple times.

[kube-system]

Yes, if your argument is found to be right in the future, then it will be right. Currently it is not, and it is unlikely to be any different until the composition of the court changes. Until then, the only other path to change it is an amendment.

[Retric]

I agree it’s the composition of the Supreme Court that’s at issue not the constitution.

Saying what arguments are right doesn’t make sense in these contexts only what is the current precedent.

[maxlybbert]

Yes, this comes up, but the Court tends to say things that didn’t exist are covered by constitutional rights. I can’t imagine think of any time they asked “could the founders have imagined this?” Television, radio, and the internet are all protected by freedom of the press without anybody ever showing that the founders could have imagined them.

From Heller v. DC:

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

A few years after that ruling, the Massachusetts state supreme court upheld a conviction for a woman who had carried a taser for self defense. The Supreme Court accepted her challenge, allowed it to go forward without paying court costs, and unanimously overturned that ruling without asking for oral arguments ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/577/411/ ):

“The court offered three explanations to support its holding that the Second Amendment does not extend to stun guns. First, the court explained that stun guns are not protected because they ‘were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.’ This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment ‘extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’

“The court next asked whether stun guns are ‘dangerous per se at common law and unusual,’ in an attempt to apply one ‘important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.’ ... In so doing, the court concluded that stun guns are ‘unusual’ because they are ‘a thoroughly modern invention.’ By equating ‘unusual’ with ‘in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment,’ the court’s second explanation is the same as the first; it is inconsistent with Heller for the same reason.

“Finally, the court used ‘a contemporary lens’ and found ‘nothing in the record to suggest that [stun guns] are readily adaptable to use in the military.’ But Heller rejected the proposition ‘that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.’

“For these three reasons, the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent.”

The fact that Caetano was a unanimous and thorough ruling says a lot to me. Perhaps you’re holding out hope that Heller will be overturned soon, but the chances for that are very slim ( https://youtu.be/nFTRwD85AQ4 ).

[Retric]

> the Court tends to say things that didn’t exist are covered by constitutional rights.

Sure but drivers licenses exist when no similar requirements existed for horse drawn buggies because the clear increase in relative danger to the public. When comparing newspapers with radio, the limited spectrum on radio was accepted as justification for more restricted speech etc.

Really citing when the court ruled one way vs another is less important than recognizing which kinds of arguments tend to resonate with the court as in the end specific cases are arbitrary decisions influenced by the specifics of the case.