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

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

 

[BULLDOG]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They are sanctioned by the state, and therefore legal.

 

[BULLDOG]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

If they aren't state sanctioned, they are illegal. Considering the gerrymandered right wing grip on Texas politics, I understand why no effort is made to enforce the law.

The law doesn't prohibit their existance. It's prohibits certain actions.

Really? What actions?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

You are correct. That is the current state of constitutional jurisprudence.

I disagree with it's limitation, but that is the correct statement of law.

What should have been held, all the way back to Miller, is that the 2A is a limit on federal authority. That would have solved a whole lot of problems.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

If they aren't state sanctioned, they are illegal. Considering the gerrymandered right wing grip on Texas politics, I understand why no effort is made to enforce the law.

The law doesn't prohibit their existance. It's prohibits certain actions.

Really? What actions?

The same operations that the Army would conduct: crowd, security checkpoints, martial law activities, use of force against citizens, etc.

If a group of people want to form a militia and train, or otherwise participate in lawful activities, there's no law against it.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They are sanctioned by the state, and therefore legal.

Militias don't require a state sanction to merely exist.

 

[BULLDOG]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

 

[BULLDOG]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

If they aren't state sanctioned, they are illegal. Considering the gerrymandered right wing grip on Texas politics, I understand why no effort is made to enforce the law.

The law doesn't prohibit their existance. It's prohibits certain actions.

Really? What actions?

The same operations that the Army would conduct: crowd, security checkpoints, martial law activities, use of force against citizens, etc.

If a group of people want to form a militia and train, or otherwise participate in lawful activities, there's no law against it.

If civilians want to dress up in camo and run around the woods playing army, that's fine, as long as the land owner doesn't mind, and they don't break any laws, like conspiracy to kidnap elected officials. They are not authorized call themselves a legal militia, or to take any paramilitary actions though. They are just playing army in the woods.

 

[BULLDOG]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They are sanctioned by the state, and therefore legal.

Militias don't require a state sanction to merely exist.

Wrong.

 

[Lesh]

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The actual context is (from Miller)

"in common use by the military".

In Miller it was held that a short barreled shotgun was not protected because it was not a "common use" military weapon.

But wait you say...machine guns SHOULD be protected precisely because they are military weapons (as are assault rifles). McConnell also held that these 'protected' common use military type weapons could be regulated in whatever manner considered reasonable (because they are so dangerous in the hands of someone intent on using them for criminal acts ie. criminals). This includes taxing them heavily and outright banning of civilian ownership of machine guns made after 1986.

You'll note that every consideration of "protection" is within the concept of militia usefullness...because that's the context of the 2A.

Scalia seeing a losing argument on many fronts proceeded with a big dose of judicial activism and excised "by the military" from the "common use" clause and THEN decoupled "Well Regulated Militia" from the 2A claiming it meant actually nothing but was just a bit of throat clearing.

The following from what Justice McReynolds wrote in Miller v US

McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”195 In other words, the Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,196 and the Second Amendment ensures it is armed.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

 

[Slade3200]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

 

[Slade3200]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

So lift all those regulations you listed around military armaments. Allow easy access for all Americans to own these weapons? Is that what you’re supporting?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

So lift all those regulations you listed around military armaments. Allow easy access for all Americans to own these weapons? Is that what you’re supporting?

I say again regulations do not affect criminals.

 

[Slade3200]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

So lift all those regulations you listed around military armaments. Allow easy access for all Americans to own these weapons? Is that what you’re supporting?

I say again regulations do not affect criminals.

So is that a yes to my question

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The actual context is (from Miller)

"in common use by the military".

In Miller it was held that a short barreled shotgun was not protected because it was not a "common use" military weapon.

But wait you say...machine guns SHOULD be protected precisely because they are military weapons (as are assault rifles). McConnell also held that these 'protected' common use military type weapons could be regulated in whatever manner considered reasonable (because they are so dangerous in the hands of someone intent on using them for criminal acts ie. criminals). This includes taxing them heavily and outright banning of civilian ownership of machine guns made after 1986.

You'll note that every consideration of "protection" is within the concept of militia usefullness...because that's the context of the 2A.

Scalia seeing a losing argument on many fronts proceeded with a big dose of judicial activism and excised "by the military" from the "common use" clause and THEN decoupled "Well Regulated Militia" from the 2A claiming it meant actually nothing but was just a bit of throat clearing.

The following from what Justice McReynolds wrote in Miller v US

McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”195 In other words, the Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,196 and the Second Amendment ensures it is armed.

Prior to Heller the debate concerned whether the Second Amendment right was a collective right or an individual right.

The Heller Court ended that debate:

“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”

Because the Second Amendment right safeguards an individual right, not a collective right, the role of the ‘militia’ is irrelevant.

The Second Amendment right does not address solely the possession of weapons needed to serve in a militia; the Second Amendment right has nothing to do with the regulation of firearms detrimental to militia service.

With the issue of ‘militia service’ no longer in play, the only question remaining is what weapons are entitled to Constitutional protections and what weapons are not.

Further, the Heller Court retained the framework established in Miller to address that question: what weapons are ‘in common use’ and immune from regulation, and what weapons are ‘dangerous and unusual’ and not protected from regulation by the Second Amendment.

Fully automatic rifles and carbines, grenade launchers, and various types of explosive devices would be examples of ‘dangerous and unusual’ weapons not entitled to Second Amendment protections; banning such weapons would be perfectly Constitutional.

We know that handguns are entitled to Constitutional protections per Heller because they are ‘in common use’; banning handguns is consequently un-Constitutional.

It is now time for other types of firearms – such as the AR 15 – to be subject to the same review by the Court; using the ‘in common use’ criterion, AR 15s would clearly be protected weapons, their prohibition likewise un-Constitutional.

 

[badbob85037]

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.

You heard Tyrant Joe, Amendments are not absolute and he said it with a shit ass grin.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

You are correct. That is the current state of constitutional jurisprudence.

I disagree with it's limitation, but that is the correct statement of law.

What should have been held, all the way back to Miller, is that the 2A is a limit on federal authority. That would have solved a whole lot of problems.

At the time of Miller, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government.

That was also the case at the time of Heller – which is why the case from DC was ideal for review, the District was a Federal entity subject to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see McDonald v. Chicago).

In fact, in many respects, McDonald is a more significant case than Heller, as prior to McDonald the states were at liberty to enact all manner of bans and restrictions with impunity.

And it’s at the state level that Second Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve; if the Supreme Court is going to rule that AR 15s are entitled to Constitutional protections, it will be the result of the Court striking down a state’s AWB – that wouldn’t be possible prior to McDonald.