Illinois slapped down about FOID card

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!

    • Register Log in
    K

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,580
    Hazzard County
    Inigoes said:
    Normal handgun magazine capacities, while outlawing normal rifle magazine capacities.
    Click to expand...

    I bet that's the reasoning. Heller said a pistol in the home is protected, a rifle in the home has not been protected by the Supreme Court.
     
    teratos

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,838
    Bel Air
    ed bernay said:
    I thought arms in common use are protected. Is that not correct?
    Click to expand...

    Yep. Also US v Miller (1939) held that only arms useful for militia service were protected. Luckily Heller/McDonald expanded that to common use.
     
    7

    777GSOTB

    Active Member
    Mar 23, 2014
    363
    teratos said:
    Yep. Also US v Miller (1939) held that only arms useful for militia service were protected. Luckily Heller/McDonald expanded that to common use.
    Click to expand...

    It wasn't really an expansion of the Miller ruling, but more of a contraction of it. After all, any firearm has military utility. Think FP-45 Liberator as an example. Funny thing is, the Miller court needed evidence of that utility and the Heller court didn't need any to essentially ban short-barreled firearms and machineguns. Just think, all we needed was one brave soul to bring a Thommy Gun case up soon after Miller and most of the issues we're having today with firearm ownership wouldn't be happening.
     
    teratos

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,838
    Bel Air
    777GSOTB said:
    It wasn't really an expansion of the Miller ruling, but more of a contraction of it. After all, any firearm has military utility. Think FP-45 Liberator as an example. Funny thing is, the Miller court needed evidence of that utility and the Heller court didn't need any to essentially ban short-barreled firearms and machineguns. Just think, all we needed was one brave soul to bring a Thommy Gun case up soon after Miller and most of the issues we're having today with firearm ownership wouldn't be happening.
    Click to expand...

    I’m all for using the tactics you laid out.
     
    JMangle

    JMangle

    Handsome Engineer
    May 11, 2008
    816
    Mississippi
    teratos said:
    Yep. Also US v Miller (1939) held that only arms useful for militia service were protected. Luckily Heller/McDonald expanded that to common use.
    Click to expand...

    If only the military decided to use Short Barrel Rifles and Machine Guns....

    Man, big government loves having it both ways.
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
    A1 Security Firearms Training Maryland

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,503
    Messages
    7,284,263
    Members
    33,471
    Latest member
    Ababe1120

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom