Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of:

[reloaderguy 30]

Assault Weapon issue everyone needs to be reminded of:

 

United States v. Miller 1939. Miller possessed a sawed-off shotgun banned under the National Firearms Act. He argued that he had a right to bear the weapon under the Second Amendment, but the Supreme Court ruled against him. Why? At the time, sawed-off shotguns were not being used in a military application, and the Supremes ruled that since it didn't, it was not protected. Even though Miller lost that argument, the Miller case set the precedent that protected firearms have a military, and thus a legitimate and protected Militia use. The military now uses shotguns regularly, but not very short, sawed-off shotguns, but an AR-15/AK-47 type weapon is currently in use by the military, therefore it is a protected weapon for the Unorganized Militia, which includes just about every American citizen now that both age and sex discrimination are illegal. (The original Militia included men of age 17-45) Therefore any firearm that is applicable to military use is clearly protected under Article II, and that includes all those nasty-looking semi-automatic black rifles, including full 30 round magazines.

[acuevo 0]

lets not forget their fully automatic capabilities as well. but the government won't care about this either way.

[M4BGRINGO 139]

Can I get some drums now for my Saiga-12? How about a few grenade launchers, they would be fun!

[incinerator950 0]

Yo dawg I heard you like shotguns. So we put a shotgun slung under your Saiga so you...

 

Yeah I'm a little brain dead at the moment.

[reloaderguy 30]

This is what the court ruled in 1939. Read the last line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

• 
  In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
  

 

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

[Candide 0]

They also run short barrel rifles with suppressors. I want one. Or two. Also submachine guns.

[NicePants 58]

This is what the court ruled in 1939. Read the last line!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

• 
  In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
  

Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

 

So, by that ruling, revolvers and lever actions COULD be banned, but you wouldn't be able to ban commonly used military weapons, including assault rifles and semi auto handguns? It's like some sort of bizarro-fudd universe!

[Foyt20 0]

Isn't a small sawed off 870 used for breeching doors, slung under he arm on a bungee, by specops?

 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2

 

 

[kotkot 26]

It's all nice, but I do wonder what NRA's strategy is sometimes. With all the cash they are racking in, Supreme Court should be swamped with lawsuits by NRA. .

 

They has 70 years to clear things up... I for one, would like to see more direct action.

[JimmyAGR 54]

So, by that ruling, revolvers and lever actions COULD be banned, but you wouldn't be able to ban commonly used military weapons, including assault rifles and semi auto handguns? It's like some sort of bizarro-fudd universe!

 

Could you imagine their face when they woke up to that !

[TK421 2]

I have said it numerous times now, I am waiting for a case to cite Heller, McDonald and Miller to finally put an end this Assault Weapon BS once and for all.

[DngrZne 0]

Perhaps we have to email the different organizations to find out if they have investigated this as an approach, and if so, why it was not used.

[incinerator950 0]

It's all nice, but I do wonder what NRA's strategy is sometimes. With all the cash they are racking in, Supreme Court should be swamped with lawsuits by NRA. .

 

They has 70 years to clear things up... I for one, would like to see more direct action.

 

Probably investing it in lobbying like everyone else is.

[ChrisJM981 924]

If it was put to rest they wouldn't have jobs anymore. Kind of how no diplomat reallly wants world peace.

[kotkot 26]

If it was put to rest they wouldn't have jobs anymore. Kind of how no diplomat reallly wants world peace.

 

has anyone seen NRA's and NRA-ILA's books? how much $$ actually goes towards legal actions, vs internal "cost of operations"?

 

I know people need to make a living...but percentages need to be retained.

[Pythagoras 2]

I have said it numerous times now, I am waiting for a case to cite Heller, McDonald and Miller to finally put an end this Assault Weapon BS once and for all.

 

This right here. I'm going to call email NJ2AS about it right now.