WSJ: Private Equity and the AR15

[Joe in PNG]

Interesting, was not aware of that.

For pretty much every reductio ad absurdum, there's some group who has seriously proposed it.

[WobblyPossum]

To be fair, there is a push to mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles.

I’d be all for that if they could do it without increasing the cost of the new vehicles.

[Joe in PNG]

I’d be all for that if they could do it without increasing the cost of the new vehicles.

It's a similar issue as with smart guns- what happens if the thing goes wonky?

[Darth_Uno]

To be fair, there is a push to mandate breathalyzers in all vehicles.

'Impaired driver technology' is actually part of the 2021 infrastructure bill, but how well (or even if) it will be implemented remains to be seen.

[WobblyPossum]

It's a similar issue as with smart guns- what happens if the thing goes wonky?

Have there been widespread issues with court-ordered ignition interlock systems going wonky?

ETA: I don’t really like the comparison to smart guns. I don’t think it’s appropriate for two main reasons.
1. Driving a motor vehicle on a public highway is not a civil right enumerated in our constitution.
2. If a smart gun spazzes out and doesn’t unlock, someone might die or be seriously injured. If a vehicle with an ignition interlock spazzes out and doesn’t unlock, someone might be late for work.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Eventually, if you are impaired and detected by the car, the AI will drive you home if close enough or to the law - perhaps, if one is not available pull you over and disable the ignition.

Even more stunning will be when the car will have sensors to determine sexual activity and then ....

Call your significant other!!

[Tabasco]

Not really BM’s fault - they were all potentially like that, especially with crap grade ammunition.

Granted, eliminating the flash hider was necessary during the AWB. Very educational in regards to why flash hiders are a good idea.

[camel]

Don't forget sleep scoring, how well rested is the driver as well as technology which automatically shuts off every smartphone in the vehicle completely. No apps, no games, not just no texting or Internet surfing. Oh, and while we're at it why don't we put a mandatory speed limit of 35 mph on every single vehicle out there.

It’s why some companies have cameras in the vehicles now.

[DDTSGM]

Why not? There were no such historical restrictions...


Now if nukes and chemical weapons were illegal for the US military to own, I could see them being illegal for citizens too. But if we're going to say the 2nd Amendment is a defense against tyranny (which was its main reason for being) how can we allow such a disparity in force?

I'm not sure what the founding father's thoughts wou;d have been on this, but....you make an interesting point regarding disparity of force.

The 2nd says....A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let's look at being necessary for the security of a free state. The cost of an atomic bomb would probably be an amount that would preclude all but the very richest among us (think 'bolt hole billionaires') from possessing.

That creates a disparity of force in the other direction - do you really want George Soros, hell even the Koch Brothers or Warren Buffet wielding such power?

In the case of such weapons of mass destruction dogma doesn't work, I believe in these very specific, extinction level cases, we need to look at what the Founders would have done if such weapons were available then.

Mass and tactics can overcome machine guns, artillery, grenades, etc. Atomic bombs, not so much.

[jh9]

Since they never intended on maintaining a standing army, they would abhor the idea of a potential tyrannical government having exclusive control over WMDs. I suspect they would ban WMDs entirely, but that obviously has its own problems with foreign enemies having their own WMDs. Parhaps they would allow state militias to own them, but not the feds?

I don't think wondering about the intention of the founders' even matters. A former polysci major and co-worker was fond of saying "Constitutional is what 5 justices say it is." AFAIK that's the simple, pragmatic reality. The fact that they bother to show off their word collection and issue legalese with their proclamations is really just theater.

Someone could challenge the 3rd amendment tomorrow and SCOTUS could say "well it's only quartering if you do it like Adam Quarter did in 1779, where he served a specific type of cheese to his British guests therefore this isn't quartering and the US Army now owns your house". And that's it. The only body that can overrule SCOTUS is SCOTUS. Every single lawyer in the country could come together and form a legal singularity in disagreement. It wouldn't matter. Alito or Kagan could respond with a half finished crossword from the New York Times as their response.

So you could call a successful constitutional convention in 2024 and change the wording of the 2nd (or technically add the 28th, whatever) to "anyone can own any weapon and carry it wherever they want at any time for any reason suck it haters". Erase all ambiguity. And in 2025 if Congress passes the "ban all guns everywhere forever" act. If 5 SCOTUS justices felt so inclined, they could eventually hear the inevitable challenge and then just say "blah blah scrutiny blah gun violence is a compelling state interest the ban is upheld". Even they even felt compelled to bother with the justification. Some lawyer here could say "but that's not how scrutiny or jurisprudence works!" And that, also, doesn't matter.

Their interpretation of the Constitution defines legality. That's the only thing that matters.

You could get an Ouija board and talk directly to the spirit of George Washington on the floor of Congress in front of God and everyone and it wouldn't matter if 5 SCOTUS justices disagreed not based on some tricky legal wrangling but because they just felt like it. And so long as 1/3-1/2 of the population gets to use that to take rights they don't like away from people they don't like impeachment or a constitutional amendment to alter SCOTUS is a complete nonstarter. Saw it with Dobbs. We'll see it again when the composition of SCOTUS changes and they reverse Bruen, McDonald and Heller.