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

Not wrong.

Mr. Miller was never convicted of anything.

Mr. Miller was murdered because the government took away the gun that he needed for self defense, making him the very first victim of gun control.


Miller concerned the NFA’s prohibition of weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual, whose sole purpose was to facilitate criminal activity – such as a sawed-off shotgun with a barrel length of less than 18”.
A sawed-off shotgun can be easily concealed by a criminal to commit robbery or murder – because such a weapon has no relationship to legitimate militia service, its possession is not within the scope of the Second Amendment.
Conservatives try to use the ‘trench gun’ lie to undermine the authority of Miller – falsely claiming that sawed-off shotguns were used by the military and therefore are ‘legitimate’ militia weapons, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.
Conservatives are either unaware that the M37 had a 20” barrel and was not a ‘sawed-off’ or ‘short barreled’ shotgun, or they are too dishonest to acknowledge this fact.
That's nice.

But none of it changes the reality that Miller was never convicted of anything, and was murdered because the government took away the gun that he needed for self defense, making him the very first victim of gun control.


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.
The ‘point’ you make is a lie.
That is incorrect. What he said is true.


No one denies that Miller concerns the possession of military weapons.
Thus, what he said is true.


Miller reaffirms the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose – such as a sawed-off shotgun, and that the possession of such weapons which have no legitimate militia purpose is not entitled to Second Amendment protections.
The Miller ruling does however say that people have the right to have full-auto weapons, as well as things like grenades and bazookas.


If a soldier would carry it in battle...I FUCKING GET IT TOO!!!
Wrong – ignorant, idiotic, ridiculous, and childish.
Funny, weren't you just citing the Miller ruling, which agrees with everything that he said??

The gun control movement really needs to make up their mind. One moment they are supporting arguments that people have the right to have military weapons. The next moment they are decrying arguments that people have the right to have military weapons.


In the coming decades Second Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of what regulations and restrictions are Constitutional and what are not.
But there will always be limits and restrictions based on what weapons are dangerous and unusual and what weapons are in common use – not based on what is possessed by the military or a childish conservative stomping his little feet having a temper tantrum.
Or a childish progressive stomping his little feet in a temper tantrum. I hear a lot more complaints about Heller from the gun control side of the fence.

If the courts stick with the philosophy of Heller alone, it is true that we won't get our machine guns. But it will still be a massive victory for gun rights. Many unconstitutional gun control laws will be struck down.

I'll be more than happy to take the enforcement of the Heller ruling as a first step and then push on from there to try to convince the courts to start enforcing the Miller ruling as well.


And there’s nothing to ‘restore,’ the right exists as it always has, as determined by the Supreme Court: neither ‘unlimited’ nor ‘absolute.’
That is incorrect. So long as the courts are not enforcing the entire right to keep and bear arms, there is still something left to restore.
 
It's described in Article 1 Section 8
That is incorrect. Article 1 Section 8 does not describe what "well regulated" means.

"Well regulated" means that the militia is an effective fighting force due to it being well armed and well trained.


NOTHING is protected UNLESS it is being used in a "Well Regulated Militia" as described above.
That is incorrect. The Second Amendment protects people's right to keep arms. It does not limit this right only to people who are using their arms for a specific purpose. This right is held by all people.

It is interesting that you argue for a militia connection. A militia connection means that the particular arms that people have the right to keep are modern infantry weapons.


Unfortunately no. Your post was not an accurate definition of the meaning of "well regulated".

"Well regulated" means that the militia is an effective fighting force because it is well trained and well armed.


The SC is always subject to re-interpretation.
The NRA worked very hard to get the make up in their favor...for now
In other words, everybody needs to vote for Republicans (both pro-Trump and anti-Trump) because progressives mean to violate our civil liberties if they get the power to do so.


A "Well regulated Militia" is described in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 of the Constitution and it describes a trained, disciplined organization with rank and roll call . Clause 15 describes its use...one of which is to put DOWN the kind of insurrection you claim the militia enables. You are wrong
He is not wrong. The term "well regulated" means that the militia is an effective fighting force because it is well armed and well trained.


The fuck are you babbling about?
He was pointing out that another poster here is wrong. You aren't the only person here who is wrong.


You're arguing with the Constitution.
That is incorrect. He was arguing with your untrue claims.


Have you read it?
I bet he has read it.


For use in the militia...as per the 2A
People also have the right to use their arms to defend their homes.

Your insistence on a militia connection is interesting. It means that the particular arms that people have the right to keep are modern infantry weapons.


All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.
A militia connection means that the particular arms that people have the right to keep are modern infantry weapons.


Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
People who keep arms have the right to protect themselves with those arms.


It also doesn't say anything about personal protection.
It does say something about people keeping arms.

People who keep arms have the right to protect themselves with the arms that they keep.


All those quotes were in the context OF the militia...which no longer exists
Insisting on a militia connection only means that the particular arms that people have the right to keep are modern infantry weapons.

The militia most certainly exists, although the government has failed to keep it well regulated.


You had your answer. A hunting rifle does not require a detachable magazine...unless you are a VERY bad shot. If you're that bad a shot you shouldn't be hunting
A hunting rifle doesn't have to require it. Some hunting rifles have detachable magazines. Some do not.


In the context of a "Well Regulated Militia..."
Insisting on a militia connection only means that the particular arms that people have the right to keep are modern infantry weapons.


The Dick Act codified two types of militia. The Organized Militia (National Guard) and the Unorganized Militia which was mandated as only being males from 17-45.
In other words ONLY males between 17 and 45 have any Federal 'right to bear arms'
All citizens of any age and any gender (even these weird modern genders) have the right to have keep arms, as well as the right to use their arms for private self defense.
 
Banning AR 15s does not ‘violate’ Heller.
Heller concerned solely the banning of handguns; the banning of other types of firearms was not subject to review.
Heller did more than that. By recognizing the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental right, they established that gun laws are allowed only if they can be justified as supporting a compelling government interest.

Since there is no compelling government interest in banning AR-15s, that means such bans violate Heller.


Heller reaffirmed the individual right, the right to self-defense, and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense:
“…handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”
Police use of AR-15s for defense against criminals shows that AR-15s are ideal for self defense. So Heller's recognition that we have the right to have weapons suitable for self defense also makes it unconstitutional to ban AR-15s.
 
It didn't "reaffirm" it. It invented it.
Heller invented nothing. People have had an individual right to be armed (and to use their arms for private self defense) for thousands of years.


Until that judicial activism there was no Federal protection for any for any of that.
The Constitution has protected the individual right to be armed (and to use those arms for private self defense) for hundreds of years.

Upholding the Constitution is not judicial activism.


Until Heller the Federal government did not involve itself in that. It was a state issue.
Until Heller the courts were not enforcing the right to keep and bear arms.

Now they are.


And assault weapons (semi-auto long guns with detachable magazines) should be treated exactly the same for the exact same reasons
Semi-auto guns are in no way assault weapons.

There is no justification whatsoever for treating semi-auto guns like full-auto guns.


The Dick Act established two classes of militia. The NG being one and the "unorganized militia" being the other.
It ONLY cover MALES 17-45. No one else. It also doesn't cover postal workers and a host of other exceptions
Irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is held by all the people, not by militiamen alone.


And Miller established that militia weapons CAN be regulated (machine guns etc.)
The Miller ruling says the exact opposite of what you claim.


Personal protection was never part of the 2A until Scalia and his judicial activism in Heller
That is incorrect. People have always had the right to use their arms for private self defense.
 
Actually, not all able bodied men. During the debate over the second amendment there was almost nothing said about a right to self-defense. But much was said about who would be "required" to be in a militia. It was not even close to all able-bodied men. I have already mentioned that Catholics, indentured servants, and Quakers were not included. But the list is much longer. Doctors, millers, and members of the clergy were also exempted. Obviously, it was much more important to the founders to support individuals NOT OWNING A GUN, than it was for them to support everyone owning a gun for self-defense. That seems to be the reality that all the gun proponents ignore.
Since the composition of the militia has nothing to do with a right that is held by the people themselves, why shouldn't we ignore it?
 
You are a member of a State Militia?
Irrelevant. The right to keep and bear arms is not held by militiamen alone, but by all the people.

But thanks for spurring the creation of the modern militia movement. If never would have happened without people reacting to your false arguments.


The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted for years.....and people like the GOPQ and the soon to be defunct NRA have taken advantage of the lie.
The only people who are lying about the Second Amendment are progressives who think that it is fun to violate people's civil liberties.
 
When using the Constitution to support your arguments, please quote the Constitution verbatim.
Not your own made up lingo.
The Constitution does not say "States militia must be well regulated and maintained"
It says:
"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."
All else is your personal interpretation - which is very much open to debate.
The meaning of well regulated is quite clear. It means that the militia is both well armed and well trained.
 
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld.
Laws are allowed to impact rights only if they can be justified as serving a compelling government interest.

Since there is no compelling government interest in mandating a waiting period, waiting periods are very much unconstitutional.


I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property.
The Supreme Court will be ruling on this in a few months.


I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits.
It is hard for murder victims to protect themselves and save their lives if the government has disarmed them.
 
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Not so. Numerous cities and states have banned assault weapons and so has Congress.
 
Note that the guns prohibited by that law are not assault weapons in any way. It merely outlaws things like pistol grips on semi-auto long guns. I'm pretty sure that the OP was talking about actual assault weapons.

Such laws should be referred to as "outlawing pistol grips" to distinguish them from laws that deal with actual assault weapons.

But anyway, regarding laws against pistol grips, the fact that the Supreme Court is not upholding the Second Amendment is not evidence that the Second Amendment is not being violated.

It is a shame that the Supreme Court has gone on for so long without upholding the Second Amendment. It is an even bigger shame that progressives have taken advantage of this to violate people's civil liberties for no reason.

Every now and then some progressives will demand passage of a new gun control law, and sometimes (rarely) it is even a proposal that makes sense and wouldn't violate the Second Amendment.

I always tell them that progressives will have to pay gun owners trillions of dollars in reparations for all their past violations of our civil liberties before I will ever consider supporting any new gun laws.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top