Yet nobody argues this.
Ruling upholds Massachusetts’ ban on AR-15s
- Thread starter pcfixer
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Yet nobody argues this.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
Tell me what firearm can't be readily used as a militia weapon? Some may be better for a specific purpose but all can be utilized if needed. Plus all members of the militia were expected to provide their own firearms when called.
Suppressors are clearly popular and widely used item among those who carry rifles in an infantry context. They are an important part of maintaining communications and safety. No brainer 2A protection status using the militia standard.
wjackcooper
Active Member
- Feb 9, 2011
- 689
Quotes from Heller:
“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.” (50)
“Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase "part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.” (52)
“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” (53)
https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/
Regards
Jack
“Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.” (50)
“Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase "part of ordinary military equipment’ could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.” (52)
“We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.” (53)
https://www.scotusblog.com/2008/06/heller-quotes-from-the-majority/
Regards
Jack
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,220
IMHO that’s why they went out of their way in heller to say they didn’t want to trash “long standing” rules. You know, like they did with slavery...
If they say the NFA is unconstitutional, imagine the fallout. Chickens little will all be screaming.
If they say the NFA is unconstitutional, imagine the fallout. Chickens little will all be screaming.
I’ll be screaming, too.....with joy as I drill a 3rd hole in all my AR receivers.
TheOriginalMexicanBob
Ultimate Member
A real tragedy with the Miller decision was that no one showed to contest the government's case before the Supreme Court. The NRA wasn't into such things at the time...not really until the '60s in any meaningful fashion.
If just some attorney argued for the other side before the Court the decision may have come out differently. As it was the government won by default.
If just some attorney argued for the other side before the Court the decision may have come out differently. As it was the government won by default.
Those banned for warfare by Geneva and other conventions.
Because Miller was not thought to constitute the threat to the 2A that was later construed and promoted by later federal courts and academics such as Adam Winkler.
ironhead7544
Active Member
- Oct 27, 2018
- 188
The weapon in the case was a short barreled shotgun. Miller had died before the SCOTUS ruled.
Exactly. A firearm not typically used by military forces, specifically not used bu US militia, and arguably to be limited by Hague convention (several countries argued in WWI that shotguns were prohibited by convention language).
One of the most interesting aspects is that the judge that supposedly supported Miller in opposing application of NFA, did so in what modern academics, in peer reviewed legal journals, now are fairly sure was collusion to harm the Second Amendment.
Take a look at pages 63-65 here:
http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/ECM_PRO_060964.pdf
Scalia, the supposed constitutionalist, along with the help of Alan Gura, threw all NFA stuff under the bus, that's why. As easily as Gura did that, it makes me wonder why he didn't opine that semi-automatics could not be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment.
Tungsten
Ultimate Member
As evidence of the types of firearms used by the militia, I would refer the SC to look at video of store owners and neighborhood watches in the recent riots. I believe they will find examples or AR-15, 22's, shotguns, airguns, and everything in between. The arbitrary ruling of only using firearms used by the military is a ridiculous argument.
You do realize that, that wasn't the argument of the case, right?
" Did the Internal Revenue Service permissibly create a regulation that extended the tax credits the Affordable Care Act authorized to federal exchanges as well as those created by the states? "
Muleskinner
Ultimate Member
Lets all go back to the original constitution...no female or minority voting...to qualify to cast a vote you must own land...21 years old to vote.
It wasn't owning land, If I remember correctly it was at least 40 acres of land.
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
Sign up on our online store and earn 1000 points- Started by J_Gunslinger
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-
-