C_Clayton_Jones
Diamond Member
I spent a few hours last night reading over the Supreme Courts rulings on the second amendment and the only reference I found to guns that are not protected are short barreled shotguns. The argument was that there was no reason to believe that they held any importance in the defense of the nation in any military way.
Of course that decision was made after WWI when shotguns in military use were cut down to make them easier to use in the trenches but before WWII and Vietnam where shotguns were again cut down to make them easier to use. The general understanding is that the founders expected every citizen to have at least hunting weapons and a weapon consistant with the current military weapons of the time. When they were called to duty they were supposed to bring with them the military weapon and leave the hunting arms for the family to use for food gathering.
The courts have never listed any gun by name or type that could be banned from use by the population in defense of themselves or their country. They have said that the right to keep and bear arms is to protect property and self from criminals and tyranical government.
So, what guns will I need when the US government uses the military to confiscate my rights?
I am thinking that one thermo-nuclear device would be enough to put a stop to it. Alas, we can't own those or even any kind of bomb but we can own military and paramilitary style weapons.
Um no, not quite.
Miller overturned a lower court ruling invalidating the NFA, where regulating firearms is permissible in the context of Commerce Clause jurisprudence, as sawed-off shotguns were deemed by the Court not necessary to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia
Heller in essence reaffirmed this principle:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 5456.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
The question then becomes what constitutes a weapon dangerous and unusual or in common use at the time. Per Miller sawed-off shotguns are the former; in most jurisdictions AR 15s and the like are the latter.