Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[blackhawk]

The term assault weapon is very silly assault is an act not an object anything you assault someone with from a gun, knife, baseball bat, crowbar to a brick could strictly speaking could be an assault weapon.

 

[BlindBoo]

He asked you what the court limited.
You gave examples.
For your examples to be -actual- examples, the court must have -actually- limited them.
If you can't cite the rulings, then your examples do not meet the challenge he put to you.
Thus, the question:
In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibitions on these firearms?

Wow. Kinda pickyum for a Friday?

Fuckit I can play. Did he say Court or just They?

But when the late Justice Scalia wrote the opinion, he spoke of this inherent right, I think it was inherent, I mean everyone had guns for hunting and protection, but he specifically said it was not unlimited.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Fuckit I can play. Did he say Court or just They?

He said court.
In response, you said they.
They = court
In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibitions on the firearms you cited?

 

[BlindBoo]

Upholding the law and the Constitution like the court did in Heller isn't activism. People have a clear right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.

I believe they struck down a law. Everybody or family I knew growing up had either a shotgun, a rifle and a handgun. Mostly all three, Nobody thought anything strange when dad bought me a shotgun to go duck hunting when I was 14 either, Certain places simply don't need a lot of gun regulations, like Montana. Others, like Chicago, do.

 

[Flash]

A newly manufactured fully automatic assault rifle.

Machine Guns, Trigger Activators & 50 Caliber Weapons

Machine guns, trigger activators, and bump stocks can cause destruction. The government does not regulate all military-grade firearms.

giffords.org

You are really a dumbshit, aren't you Moon Bat?

The Miller case didn't overturn the NFA but it did affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in general use by the military. Miller was found guilty of violating the NFA because the Court (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not in general use by the military. Had they done their homework they would have discovered that the military did indeed use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

So we have the Court saying that the Second Amendment protects firearms in general use by the military and then we having them affirming that it is an individual right so what else you got Moon Bat?

 

[BlindBoo]

He said court.
In response, you said they.
They = court
In which ruling(s) did the court uphold the prohibitions on the firearms you cited?

"So what did they limit?

Be specific."

But then again you know the case and know it limited the Government from banning handguns but it certainly hasn't been used to overturn any of the laws banning military grade weapons.

Have a beer!

 

[BlindBoo]

You are really a dumbshit, aren't you Moon Bat?

The Miller case didn't overturn the NFA but it did affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in general use by the military. Miller was found guilty of violating the NFA because the Court (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not in general use by the military. Had they done their homework they would have discovered that the military did indeed use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

So we have the Court saying that the Second Amendment protects firearms in general use by the military and then we having them affirming that it is an individual right so what else you got Moon Bat?

Sure pal, go out a buy a new .50 caliber machine gun and have some fun.

 

[Open Bolt]

The Miller case didn't overturn the NFA but it did affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to firearms in general use by the military. Miller was found guilty of violating the NFA because the Court (erroneously) determined that his sawed off shotgun was not in general use by the military. Had they done their homework they would have discovered that the military did indeed use sawed off shotguns in WWI.

Just nitpicking, but Mr. Miller was never found guilty.

The trial court struck down the NFA and released Mr. Miller, but the police kept his gun anyway, leaving him defenseless. Mr. Miller had had his sawed-off shotgun for protection because someone was trying to kill him.

Alas, without his gun to protect him, he was soon found shot to death, which makes Mr. Miller the very first victim of gun control in the US.

When the case got to the Supreme Court it should have been up to Mr. Miller's defense to argue that his shotgun was covered by the Second Amendment. But by that time Mr. Miller was already dead and there was no longer any defense to present that side of the case.

 

[Open Bolt]

I believe they struck down a law.

Striking down an unconstitutional law is upholding the law.

 

[BlindBoo]

Striking down an unconstitutional law is upholding the law.

Not really, It just gives the Legislature a chance to take another stab at it. Like it took 40 year to declare the original Marijuana Tax Act was unconstitutional. But by then the Fed's power had grown so much they just quickly passed another law outlawing it on the federal and even international level. Something they never did when the country prohibited alcohol with a Constitutional Amendment. Can you imagine the US raiding and shutting down a Canadian Club distillery, but I ramble.......

 

[Open Bolt]

Not really,

The Constitution is the highest law in the land. Striking down unconstitutional laws is upholding the Constitution.

It just gives the Legislature a chance to take another stab at it. Like it took 40 year to declare the original Marijuana Tax Act was unconstitutional. But by then the Fed's power had grown so much they just quickly passed another law outlawing it on the federal and even international level.

If they pass a new law, that too can be struck down if it is unconstitutional.

If the new law passes muster with the Constitution, all is good.

If the new law is also unconstitutional and the courts do not strike it down, then they are not doing their job.

Something they never did when the country prohibited alcohol with a Constitutional Amendment.

The courts actively enforced the Constitution back then.

FDR did a lot of damage to the government and in some cases the courts no longer enforce the Constitution because of him.

Obviously that is wrong.

 

[Flash]

Just nitpicking, but Mr. Miller was never found guilty.

The trial court struck down the NFA and released Mr. Miller, but the police kept his gun anyway, leaving him defenseless. Mr. Miller had had his sawed-off shotgun for protection because someone was trying to kill him.

Alas, without his gun to protect him, he was soon found shot to death, which makes Mr. Miller the very first victim of gun control in the US.

When the case got to the Supreme Court it should have been up to Mr. Miller's defense to argue that his shotgun was covered by the Second Amendment. But by that time Mr. Miller was already dead and there was no longer any defense to present that side of the case.

The Supreme Court did not strike down the NFA in the Miller case. However, by making the assertion that the Second protected firearms in general use by the military it could be argued that the NFA was indirectly struct down. Too bad nobody ever followed up on that.

Too bad Miller disappeared and never put on a defense in the case. I think it would have struct down the NFA.

The point I always make to these anti gun nuts is that Miller affirmed that the Second applies to military type firearms. They don't want to hear that.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The second Amended doesn't specify what weapons the people are allowed or not allowed to have is the argument I heard. So you draw a line at Nuclear Weapons?

No. I said that AT A FUCKING MINIMUM, individuals have a right to ANYTHING a soldier would carry RIGHT NOW and in the future.

If somebody has the $$$ and the will to use a nuke, don't blame me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"​

Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.

Just like it says.

Not the Wild West.

That is not mandatory for me to retain my right. That is merely the stated purpose for why my right shall not be infringed.

I get machine guns.

You shit your pants.

 

[Mac1958]

That is not mandatory for me to retain my right. That is merely the stated purpose for why my right shall not be infringed.

I get machine guns.

You shit your pants.

Hi Rambo!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Hi Rambo!

Take your childish attempts to shame and shove them up your smelly ass.

Betha

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"​

Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.

Just like it says.

Not the Wild West.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

 

[Flash]

"A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"​

Right. A state militia. Maintained and well regulated.

Just like it says.

Not the Wild West.

You have been told a thousand times on this forum that Heller affirmed that you don't have to be a member of any militia to enjoy the right to keep and bear arms. It is an individual right. I shit you not.

But you don't want to hear that because you are a stupid uneducated confused Moon Bat with your head up your Libtrad ass so you ignore it.

 

[Open Bolt]

This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Okay. So, a couple of points:
First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Actually that is exactly what it says.

It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

That is incorrect. It mandates that the militia be well armed and well trained, and it forbids infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.

That is incorrect. What "well regulated" means is that the militia in question is well armed and well trained.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.

What does "like Yosemite Sam" mean?

The right to keep and bear arms includes people having guns for the private defense of their home.

Seems pretty clear: If you want to protect yourselves, join a militia, which will be regulated.

People have the right to have guns for the private defense of their home. They are not required to join any group in order to exercise this right.

 

[Open Bolt]

"The People" demand that the gun-dependent sissies not pleasure themselves in indulgences that result in the slaughter of innocent children women, and men.

The Freedom Haters do not speak for the people. They only think that they do.

Gun ownership does not result in the slaughter of any innocent people. Those people would be just as dead if they were killed with some other weapon.

I'm pleased to see that being confronted with the consequences of permissive firearm laws makes you want to look the other way.

Widespread gun ownership is not the cause of mass murders. Murder victims would be just as dead if they were killed with different weapons.

The People have the right to take reasonable preventative measures.

Not if those measures violate anyone's civil liberties.