I've seen the case name brought up a few times, and the decision would seem to suggest that any firearms in common use by the military should be fair game to own. Are there other court rulings nullifying that?

 

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Its illegal as per the constitution, you think it will stop the agenda?

 

This whole debacle is shapeing up to be either a serious tipping point or a wake up call for america. I believe the next 6months will tell the story.

The way I see it, US vs Miller banned short-barrel-shotguns because the Court felt such weapons were NOT protected by the Second Amendment because they were unsuitable for militia service (see http://en.wikipedia....tates_v._Miller). This indicates that the Second Amendment protects militia-appropriate firearms, a.k.a. the Court thought the 2nd Amendment ONLY protects military-style weapons ... so all males 17-45 should possess an M4, an ACR, a FAMAS, etc. This also means the anti's who want to ban assault weapons are in direct opposition to this case law.

 

tl;dr - US v Miller implies private citizens should be armed like the U.S. military

Its illegal as per the constitution, you think it will stop the agenda?

 

This.

 

Attention lawmakers: the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, so stop using it for toilet paper.

We know our lawmakers don't give a crap about the Constitution, so I imagine this battle will be heading to the Supreme Court where it, at least until Obama makes more appointments, holds a little more weight. I don't see how an assault weapons ban could be upheld as being constitutional, and even the NFA for that matter.

I don't see how an assault weapons ban could be upheld as being constitutional, and even the NFA for that matter.

 

Exactly.

 

"Shall not be infringed"

Miller was about 'Military' grade firearms an actual Militia would use....

 

Heller is the one to be concerned with.....

Miller was about 'Military' grade firearms an actual Militia would use....

 

Heller is the one to be concerned with.....

 

But Miller also defined Militia as all able bodied males, which in this day and age would include females as well I'd think, so even for those hell bent on the second only applying to the "militia" it should be a tough one to argue against. Throw Heller on top and you start to have some pretty hefty precedent. But I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so what do I know?

But I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, so what do I know?

 

And I'm a physicist. This means we know how law-constrained systems work. Whether it's physical laws set forth by nature or firearms laws written by men, we have the uncanny ability to understand what laws do. And that puts us in a great position to call out the people who have no idea what they're talking about.