RackAttack
New Member
(I am not a lawyer. I just needed to get that out of the way.)((My question(s) come towards the end of what follows.))
I have a theory and I want to know if my theory is even remotely accurate.
Let's start at the base, "shall not be infringed," is very clear, yet there are restrictive gun laws infringing all the time. However, there seems to be one group of weapons that are immune to most of this infringement: Antique weapons / black powder / cap and ball.
These type of weapons are not even legally considered "firearms" to which most (not all) of the infringing laws apply.
My theory is that some anti-gun person or group (entity) wanted to restrict guns from a populous with a Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that basically says you cannot restrict guns. So this entity pulled some sort of shifty legal maneuver to separate out "modern weapons" from "antique weapons" thereby the so-called antique weapons are what the Right refers to, but the modern weapons do not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment.
My theory continues in thinking that somewhere there is some verbiage that represents this shifty maneuver. Either it is some obscure written law or obscure court case determination or some precedent hidden somewhere, more or less buried in antiquity.
Now I am aware that within the US Code and State Codes, that the distinction between a firearm and an antique weapon is spelled out, so that's not what I'm wondering about. What I am wondering about is WHY there is such a distinction and how that matters (or even how it could matter) legally when applying restrictions to gun ownership and carry.
Did some entity write legislation or was there some case precedent that allows for "infringing" "firearms" while simultaneously preserving the Second Amendment Rights of "antique weapons?"
If so, was this legislation written intentionally (or in the case of case precedent: used intentionally) to circumvent the Second Amendment?
I'm speaking mostly federal law here as state law would be a whole other can of worms.
How is it I can legally walk into a store, pick up a cap and ball revolver, plunk it down on the checkout counter and buy it simply with cash with no questions asked?
And...
How is it that I could walk down the street with a cap and ball revolver openly strapped to my hip, without permit, license, Etc. but at the same instance would not be able to do the same legally with, say, another "old/antique" gun, the Colt 1911 pistol?
The only distinguishing factor I can see is that one contains cartridges and the other does not.
DID SOME ENTITY SOMEWHERE MANIPULATE THE LAW IN SUCH A FASHION AS TO BE ABLE TO NOW INFRINGE UPON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN "ANTIQUE" AND "MODERN?" WHERE IS / AND WHY IS THERE SUCH A DISTINCTION? AND IS THAT DISTINCTION BASED UPON THE CARTRIDGE?
(I'm familiar with Heller, justices opinions, and the recent Supreme Court decision. Just so you know.)
(Disclaimer: Follow the law! None of the above is meant as legal advice. Each state has their own nuances regarding guns and the carrying thereof. CHECK AND FOLLOW ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LAW WITHIN THE STATE AND COMMUNITY YOU RESIDE! THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND LEGALLY CARRYING IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE! SEEK PROPERLY LEGAL ADVICE AND STAY WITHIN THE LAW.)
I have a theory and I want to know if my theory is even remotely accurate.
Let's start at the base, "shall not be infringed," is very clear, yet there are restrictive gun laws infringing all the time. However, there seems to be one group of weapons that are immune to most of this infringement: Antique weapons / black powder / cap and ball.
These type of weapons are not even legally considered "firearms" to which most (not all) of the infringing laws apply.
My theory is that some anti-gun person or group (entity) wanted to restrict guns from a populous with a Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights that basically says you cannot restrict guns. So this entity pulled some sort of shifty legal maneuver to separate out "modern weapons" from "antique weapons" thereby the so-called antique weapons are what the Right refers to, but the modern weapons do not fall under the protections of the Second Amendment.
My theory continues in thinking that somewhere there is some verbiage that represents this shifty maneuver. Either it is some obscure written law or obscure court case determination or some precedent hidden somewhere, more or less buried in antiquity.
Now I am aware that within the US Code and State Codes, that the distinction between a firearm and an antique weapon is spelled out, so that's not what I'm wondering about. What I am wondering about is WHY there is such a distinction and how that matters (or even how it could matter) legally when applying restrictions to gun ownership and carry.
Did some entity write legislation or was there some case precedent that allows for "infringing" "firearms" while simultaneously preserving the Second Amendment Rights of "antique weapons?"
If so, was this legislation written intentionally (or in the case of case precedent: used intentionally) to circumvent the Second Amendment?
I'm speaking mostly federal law here as state law would be a whole other can of worms.
How is it I can legally walk into a store, pick up a cap and ball revolver, plunk it down on the checkout counter and buy it simply with cash with no questions asked?
And...
How is it that I could walk down the street with a cap and ball revolver openly strapped to my hip, without permit, license, Etc. but at the same instance would not be able to do the same legally with, say, another "old/antique" gun, the Colt 1911 pistol?
The only distinguishing factor I can see is that one contains cartridges and the other does not.
DID SOME ENTITY SOMEWHERE MANIPULATE THE LAW IN SUCH A FASHION AS TO BE ABLE TO NOW INFRINGE UPON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS BECAUSE OF A DISTINCTION BETWEEN "ANTIQUE" AND "MODERN?" WHERE IS / AND WHY IS THERE SUCH A DISTINCTION? AND IS THAT DISTINCTION BASED UPON THE CARTRIDGE?
(I'm familiar with Heller, justices opinions, and the recent Supreme Court decision. Just so you know.)
(Disclaimer: Follow the law! None of the above is meant as legal advice. Each state has their own nuances regarding guns and the carrying thereof. CHECK AND FOLLOW ALL LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LAW WITHIN THE STATE AND COMMUNITY YOU RESIDE! THE RESPONSIBILITY OF GUN OWNERSHIP AND LEGALLY CARRYING IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE! SEEK PROPERLY LEGAL ADVICE AND STAY WITHIN THE LAW.)
