The absolute limits of gun rights?

[Lumpy]

Gun control proponents and critics of the rtkaba sometimes take an extreme case as a hypothetical: "so people can own nukes?" That's a specious example but it occurs to me that there may be one that is not. I refer to MAnPortable AirDefense Systems, or MANPADS. Many might be familiar with the Stinger as an example. As far as I know no civilian airliner in the USA has ever been targeted with one due to the expense and difficulty of obtaining a weapon that is illegal six ways to Sunday; but the prospect is horrifying.

Here's the problem: if under an absolute no-compromise interpretation of the rtkaba you could own any weapon someone is willing to sell you, that would include MANPADS. And no matter what we do, there will always be some tiny number of absolute psychopathic monsters. Give them the power to kill hundreds of people in a stroke and it would happen. Even if law enforcement was infallibly perfect- if every single person who did such a thing WOULD be caught, and WOULD be executed by televised torture as the penalty- there are people that still wouldn't deter. And no conceivable punishment would make up for a crime of such magnitude. Add to this that there would be almost no conceivable lawful use for such a weapon other than playing with it on a firing range, and how could one justify the risk? Once would be one time too many. I simply can't imagine how uncontrolled access to MANPADS could ever be allowed.

But now we're on the slippery slope. If MANPADS aren't compatible with lawful civilization, what else isn't? Grenade launchers and RPGs? Artillery? Medium and heavy machine guns? Select-fire rifles? "Assault Weapons"? Any gun that holds more than six rounds? Every argument I made against MANPADS- that in a world with homicidal nuts some weapons are just too destructive and too unjustified- has already been applied to the weapons the antis want to see banned. Once it's decided that some weapons can be banned, the list of allowed weapons could be "none".

Does anyone see a way out of this?

[Markemp]

Regulations?

It’s the area between everything is permissible and nothing is allowed. We are able to draw lines. Its hard to do sometimes and requires constant monitoring, study and tweaking but it’s the solution to your question.

The slippery slope logical fallacy works both ways, as you’ve just noticed. Using it to justify a position just doesn’t work in the real world.

[xd ED]

If the ability to drop an airliner is the threshold for prohibition, everything with the ballistic capabilities of a potato gun, and beyond will be outlawed.
(There was an incident somewhere in Britain in the past, where someone plotted to take out an airliner with a potato gun.

Using the the ‘what if’ argument, one can argue for - or against - just about anything.

[bstrawse]

The standard in Heller is "Dangerous and Unusual" - different circuit courts have read this differently, even post-Bruen.

[jdege]

For my own take, I distinguish between ownership and use.

I think it quite reasonable that an individual might own a 155mm howitzer, but that restrictions on where he might use it be fairly restrictive. In fact, that's pretty much federal law, as it stands currently. Minnesota is one of the states that applies additional, and I think unreasonable, restrictions on NFA items, but in most states it's perfectly legal to own artillery. But there are very few places where you can legally fire it.

You can own, or build for yourself, a rocket that can reach the stratosphere, but there are limits as to where and when you can launch it, FAA licenses that must be obtained when using certain kinds of fuels or motors exceeding certain sizes. These also seem reasonable, provided that the laws are administered in an objective, non-discretionary manner. Which, with exception of laws involving firearms, they generally are.

We have laws regarding the handling of explosives, licenses required for handling and use, permits for storage. And again, these laws seem reasonable, because they are administered in a non-discretionary manner.

It's only with firearms that we had laws that granted government officials arbitrary discretion.

[Holland&Holland]

I have no issues with me owning anything I want to own.

[Lumpy]

For my own take, I distinguish between ownership and use. I think it quite reasonable that an individual might own a 155mm howitzer, but that restrictions on where he might use it be fairly restrictive.

One could say the same about MANPADS. The problem is what happens when the voices tell someone with no priors to shoot down an airliner; unless they're required to keep their MANPADS in a locker at an approved firing range that they're not permitted to remove it from, like European-level gun control.

in most states it's perfectly legal to own artillery. But there are very few places where you can legally fire it.

Which brings us to carry permits. If they'd been smarter, the May Issue states could have passed non-discretionary carry laws that nonetheless set the bar so high that in practice only police or vetted security guards could qualify (like the state or the firm you work for indemnifying you for millions of dollars against a wrongful death suit). The antis argue that no one other than a trained professional should be trusted to fire a gun within the crowded confines of city limits. (Which incidentally means they have an entirely misplaced faith in the marksmanship of most police).

We have laws regarding the handling of explosives, licenses required for handling and use, permits for storage. And again, these laws seem reasonable, because they are administered in a non-discretionary manner. It's only with firearms that we had laws that granted government officials arbitrary discretion.

I think this is because of the perception that while traditional hunting firearms such as internal magazine rifles and shotguns clearly have a legitimate non-aggressive purpose, handguns and "assault weapons" are considered less justifiable. While some antis want to ban guns period, the broadest support for gun control is against precisely those firearms that are considered primarily anti-personnel by design. Hence the mantra "what do you need a thirty-round removable magazine for?".

Yanno, this is weird. I still don't agree with the banners, but since starting this thread I'm following the logic they operate by.

[jdege]

In my mind discretion and the rigor of the requirements are two separate discussions.

I mentioned NFA above. I'll argue that the standards are too strict, the fees too high, and the delays too onerous. They were clearly designed to be, imposing a $200 tax on a $5 gun. But since we repealed the local LEO signoff, they are not subject to arbitrary discretion, and that's important.