Jump to content
Shawnmoore81

Assault weapons not protected

Recommended Posts

Well this is some bs. Hopefully it gets appealed to the supreme court

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/amp/assault-weapons-not-protected-second-amendment-federal-appeals-court-rules-n724106?client=safari

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have the 1934 case saying if it isn't military, it isn't protected, and these jagoffs saying if it is military it isn't protected. 

That;s it in a nutsack.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war," Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.

Can somebody show me where that was said in Heller? Because I have never seen it. There is a hypothetical discussion that banning of "M-16"s would or would not prove that we have already detached from the Right of the People, and the argument that exotic weapons are required to defeat tanks and bombers on the modern battlefield, and that makes the 2A moot in that respect but they are saying those arguments are not true. I have no idea where they are getting this, if somebody can show me, please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can somebody show me where that was said in Heller? Because I have never seen it. There is a hypothetical discussion that banning of "M-16"s would or would not prove that we have already detached from the Right of the People, and the argument that exotic weapons are required to defeat tanks and bombers on the modern battlefield, and that makes the 2A moot in that respect but they are saying those arguments are not true. I have no idea where they are getting this, if somebody can show me, please do.

 

Best guess from the Heller Decision:

b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the holder of the right—"the people"—to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms."

Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, 

2792

 

*2792 prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best guess from the Heller Decision:

b. "Keep and bear Arms." We move now from the holder of the right—"the people"—to the substance of the right: "to keep and bear Arms."

Before addressing the verbs "keep" and "bear," we interpret their object: "Arms." The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined "arms" as "weapons of offence, or armour of defence." 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined "arms" as "any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another." 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. For instance, Cunningham's legal dictionary gave as an example of usage: "Servants and labourers shall use bows and arrows on Sundays, & c. and not bear other arms." See also, e.g., An Act for the trial of Negroes, 1797 Del. Laws ch. XLIII, § 6, p. 104, in 1 First Laws of the State of Delaware 102, 104 (J. Cushing ed.1981 (pt. 1)); see generally State v. Duke, 42 Tex. 455, 458 (1874) (citing decisions of state courts construing "arms"). Although one founding-era thesaurus limited "arms" (as opposed to "weapons") to "instruments of offence generally made use of in war," even that source stated that all firearms constituted "arms." 1 J. Trusler, The Distinction Between Words Esteemed Synonymous in the English Language 37 (1794) (emphasis added).

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union,521 U.S. 844, 849, 117 S.Ct. 2329, 138 L.Ed.2d 874 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 35-36, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001), the Second Amendment extends,

2792

*2792 prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

Thanks. I don't think that is going to do it for them. Not on its own, but especially in the context of the rest of the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. The second amendment has no qualifications on arms weapons of war / civilian arms. In fact in the day they had canons and muskets. So what Guns have evolved but the brilliance of our founding fathers is the the constitution is elastic enough to cover these things.. at the time of its writing we didn't Have a grenade launcher, machine gun, etc but so what they are "arms."

 

I'm no criminal so a select fire rifle in my hands wouldn't make me become inclined to proliferate a crime. So who cares, musket or m16? Only criminals.

 

Why are there no qualifications on any other amendment like the 1st? We didn't have the internet, email, twitter, Facebook, instagram etc yet they aren't illegal. Plenty of people have hurt themselves or others with these tools, some irreparably. Silliness Trumps court needs to fix this insanity. Under this view the 1st amendment would only include conversation, the town crier and the printing press.

 

I'd ask the court how hey read into the intentions of guys who are dead for 200 years when civilians weapons and weapons of war were one in the same? It is the most presumptive interpretation I've ever read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heller does NOT indicate that the Second Amendment does not protect military arms. I suggest the ones that have not read it, give it a read:

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

 

And be sure to keep dicta and the decision separate.

 

The Late, Great Scalia wrote the decision and opinion of the court. He was asked afterwards if the decision means the Second Amendment does or does not protect "assault weapons." He responded that was outside the scope of the decision. REMEMBER - they will never comment on anything outside the scope of a decision. But that pretty much sums it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm amazed at how the logic twisted back on itself over time, while the goal remains the same - disallow possession.

 

Today - you can't have weapons that are like military weapons.

The past - you can't have weapons that *aren't* like military weapons:

 

 

In 1938, the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas ruled the statute unconstitutional in United States v. Miller. The defendant Miller had been arrested for possession of an unregistered short double-barreled shotgun, and for "unlawfully...transporting [it] in interstate commerce from Claremore, Oklahoma to Siloam Springs, Arkansas" which perfected the crime.[42]

 

The government's argument was that the short barreled shotgun was not a military-type weapon and thus not a "militia" weapon protected by the Second Amendment, from federal infringement. The District Court agreed with Miller's argument that the shotgun was legal under the Second Amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In just 5 yrs Obama was able to get 7  judges placed in just the 4th. He was very busy behind the scenes .Didnt really accomplish much out front but behind the curtains he was re-enforcing his after office crusade. Community Organizer In Chief, he's good at that. Between stacking the courts and his OFA  coming out he's clearly got an agenda that isnt going away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't know if this is a good thing.. at least not in the long-term.

I don't like tying the right to own "AW"-type rifles to the concept of Militia.  The anti-gun side has already shown their willingness to tie the entire 2A to that concept as a means to limit the right.  This would give more weight to that argument (as dubious as it is).

I also don't like trying to do this by EO.  While it may provide a short-term benefit, ultimately that EO could be rescinded the next time there is a democrat president.

I could see this a way to provide short-term relief and to stop the ongoing efforts at the state level, but it would need to be immediately followed up by SCOTUS rulings to establish the long-standing interpretation.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...