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

[Lesh]

Automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, can be legally owned by private citizens as long as the weapon was made before May of 1986 and is registered with the federal government. Any machine gun made or imported after 1986 can only legally be owned by a licensed dealer, police, or military.Oct 2, 2017

 

[Lesh]

And it is clear this article is about being able to call up the unorganized militia into active duty, essentially the draft.

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

 

[Rigby5]

Automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, can be legally owned by private citizens as long as the weapon was made before May of 1986 and is registered with the federal government. Any machine gun made or imported after 1986 can only legally be owned by a licensed dealer, police, or military.Oct 2, 2017

Wrong.
There are thousands of pages of federal firearms laws so I am not going to try to quote them.
But use your head.
Not only are modern automatic weapons manufactured by civilians, but they also have to be researched, tested, etc., by civilians.
Not to mention that all the politicians in DC, as well as Brinks, Wells Fargo, Pinkerton, Blackwater Security, etc., employ civilians armed with full auto weapons.
And you should immediately be aware that it would be inherently illegal to not allow civilians to own full auto weapons.
The right to own them has to come from the inherent rights of individuals.
That is WHERE the ability for the police and military have them comes from.
What you suggest is backwards, where the underlings have them, the police and military, but not the superior employers, the average citizens.

 

[Rigby5]

And it is clear this article is about being able to call up the unorganized militia into active duty, essentially the draft.

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

Does not matter what the act was that allows for the call up of the unorganized militia into the organized militia.
The point is that "well regulated" does not refer to the organized militia.
It can't.
That would mean the 2nd amendment was saying, "the federal government shall not disarm itself".
What you have not shown is what "well regulated" means, and clearly it can not mean restricted.
You can't have an organized militia if you don't have an armed unorganized militia to draw upon.

 

[justinacolmena]

Do not need the 2nd amendment.

I think you just showed that you support gun control and oppose individual gun rights.

What I just showed is that the 4th and 5th amendments make federal firearm restrictions illegal.

The Second Amendment is still needed to prevent state and local restrictions on the right to keep and bear Arms. There are too many concealed carry "reciprocity" and other junk laws, in conjunction with other laws that establish nation-wide blacklists and prohibit gun ownership in one state based on laws in a different state, and by your logic, state and local laws should have to pass the bar under the U.S. Constitution as well, but unfortunately they do not, and guns remain banned under a SNAFU of paperwork, just as the Democrats like it and want to keep it.

That is in addition to the 9th and 10th, which also make federal gun laws illegal because the acticles do not authorize them.

And I don't like the false flag federal prosecutions in small-town state and local courts.

 

[justinacolmena]

There are thousands of pages of federal firearms laws so I am not going to try to quote them.

The junk laws have to go, along with the fingerprint databases and DNA junk drawers.
The sleazy pawn-shop background checks for gun purchases have to go.
If you're out of prison, I'm sorry, but you've got to be good to go to purchase a firearm just like everybody else, no questions asked.

If you aren't shooting or robbing or killing anybody with your firearm, it's nobody's business to say you can't or shouldn't own it, or you should go to prison for possessing it. Those law enforcement agents are committing treason by railroading that junk through a complicit prosecutor's court system.

 

[Rigby5]

Do not need the 2nd amendment.

I think you just showed that you support gun control and oppose individual gun rights.

What I just showed is that the 4th and 5th amendments make federal firearm restrictions illegal.

The Second Amendment is still needed to prevent state and local restrictions on the right to keep and bear Arms. There are too many concealed carry "reciprocity" and other junk laws, in conjunction with other laws that establish nation-wide blacklists and prohibit gun ownership in one state based on laws in a different state, and by your logic, state and local laws should have to pass the bar under the U.S. Constitution as well, but unfortunately they do not, and guns remain banned under a SNAFU of paperwork, just as the Democrats like it and want to keep it.

That is in addition to the 9th and 10th, which also make federal gun laws illegal because the acticles do not authorize them.

And I don't like the false flag federal prosecutions in small-town state and local courts.

Wrong.
I do not support gun control and do support individual gun rights.
I just was pointing out that the 2nd amendment is a division of jurisdiction which forbid any federal gun laws.
That does not determine if gun rights can be restricted locally or not, so there are better ways to determine that gun rights are individual than the 2nd amendment.

The place where it becomes obvious that gun rights are individual if from the 4th and 5th amendments, since there is no other way to protect life, liberty, home, or possessions, without individual gun rights.

Small town local courts are going to be better than federal courts due to awareness of local threats, like bear in Alaska.

 

[BlindBoo]

Since there are over 1 million successful violent crimes a year according to the DOJ, then the MAIN point of gun rights are for individual defense and home defense.

with over 1.2 million violent crimes in 2019, the strategy needs revision.

The reality is no state or country has actually been attacked since 1812.

New Mexico was attacked in 1916. The States militia's 'National Guard', have been called on numerous times since then as well.

 

[BlindBoo]

The point is that "well regulated" does not refer to the organized militia.

At the time there was only the militia, that was most all free white property owners were expected to join, and well regulated was meant for them. The militia had to be trained and it had to maintain it's training as well.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And it is clear this article is about being able to call up the unorganized militia into active duty, essentially the draft.

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

So, Congress can just pass a law that overrides the1st Amendment or 19th Amendment or anything Congress wants?

 

[Lesh]

And it is clear this article is about being able to call up the unorganized militia into active duty, essentially the draft.

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

So, Congress can just pass a law that overrides the1st Amendment or 19th Amendment or anything Congress wants?

The lack of challenge to the Dick Act (and its successors) means it is consistent with the Constitution

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, it isn't. It is about the security of our free States. It says so in the first clause.

The security of our free States demands in no uncertain terms that the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State--that is what is demanded by a State.

How can you have a free state or any free states if there federal gun control over them?
The 9th and 10th amendments are clear, there can be no federal gun control because no article in the constitution authorizes that.

Because it is clearly outlined in our federal Constitution.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

so congress needs to start handing out automatic weapons, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Insist on getting organized.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

To the militia mobile!

we are organized under the unorganized militia
WE ARE COMING FOR YOU ANTIRIGHTS FASCIST

Only if you're between 17 and 45 and eligible for the draft.

your moniker fits you blind
There is no age limit max. in the unorganized militia
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.

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

and your point is that you agree with me.
The people have an individual right to firearms because the second amendment is an individual right like all rights are and are not given to the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And it is clear this article is about being able to call up the unorganized militia into active duty, essentially the draft.

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

So, Congress can just pass a law that overrides the1st Amendment or 19th Amendment or anything Congress wants?

they can make slavery legal again hell if a person can say a right is not absolute the 13th amendment can be negated by the stroke of a presidential executive order

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And it is clear this article is about being able to call up the unorganized militia into active duty, essentially the draft.

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

So, Congress can just pass a law that overrides the1st Amendment or 19th Amendment or anything Congress wants?

The lack of challenge to the Dick Act (and its successors) means it is consistent with the Constitution

You have the other militia members who are not connected with the national guard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A. We HAD a ban on assault weapons for 10 years. The Courts never ruled it was unconstitutional. It ended because it had a Sunset Clause written into it.

B. There exists strict regulations and even bans on machine guns....and those have not been challenged. That exists because of the inherent danger of those particular weapons of war.

C. The 2A says zero about self protection (leaving that to the states) . In fact the militia is also described in the body of the Constitution and describes it only as a military body (one use is to put down insurrections)

Here is your buzz kill
You crow about an assault weapon ban that we had in the past those weapons weren't in common use at the time but they are now
Machine guns aren't illegal to own if they w\ere manufactured before 1989
States do not have a second amendment right it wasn't written for the states as a matter of fact each state has a bill of rights that also protects firearms for its citizens of those states.

 

[Lesh]

You crow about an assault weapon ban that we had in the past those weapons weren't in common use at the time but they are now

"Common use" was not part of the 2A. It was some fiction Scalia used to decouple gun rights FROM the 2A.

Machine guns aren't illegal to own if they w\ere manufactured before 1989

But they are regulated in a way that makes them exceedingly rare. We should probably do that for assault weapons at least huh?

States do not have a second amendment right it wasn't written for the states as a matter of fact each state has a bill of rights that also protects firearms for its citizens of those states.

I agree. That should be the within the realm of the states, not the Federal government

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So how is it that machine guns are banned and regulated?

Unconstitutional acts of Congress.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Common use" was not part of the 2A. It was some fiction Scalia used to decouple gun rights FROM the 2A.

It was a fiction, but it doesn't matter whether gun rights are coupled with or decoupled from the 2A. The 2A operates to protect the right of the people, not the militia, not the states, not the necessity, etc. You can't get past what the 2A ACTUALLY DOES, and you and your communist won't amend it, because you know that this time around it will say, **** YOU, WE GET NUKES!!!

Scalia was a chickenshit in the Heller decision. He knew what he should have done, but was too afraid of the consequences and demonstrated a REAL lack of faith in the American People. The PLAIN LANGUAGE of the 2A protects the individual right, and was meant to be a guarantee that the new FedGov would have NO JURISDICTION OR POWER over the use/sale/manufacture of arms. Thus, ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

You better pray to the god of gun-grabbing communist pukes that this issue never gets back before this SCOTUS because Barrett is an absolutist. Your continued meddling with the right may get you more than you bargained for. We will not only keep our assault-rifle-shaped semi-auto sporting rifles, but we could also get actual, real assault rifles manufactured after 1986.

Keep pushing your luck, you communist shits.

 

[Lesh]

"Common use" was not part of the 2A. It was some fiction Scalia used to decouple gun rights FROM the 2A.

It was a fiction, but it doesn't matter whether gun rights are coupled with or decoupled from the 2A. The 2A operates to protect the right of the people, not the militia, not the states, not the necessity, etc. You can't get past what the 2A ACTUALLY DOES, and you and your communist won't amend it, because you know that this time around it will say, **** YOU, WE GET NUKES!!!

Scalia was a chickenshit in the Heller decision. He knew what he should have done, but was too afraid of the consequences and demonstrated a REAL lack of faith in the American People. The PLAIN LANGUAGE of the 2A protects the individual right, and was meant to be a guarantee that the new FedGov would have NO JURISDICTION OR POWER over the use/sale/manufacture of arms. Thus, ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

You better pray to the god of gun-grabbing communist pukes that this issue never gets back before this SCOTUS because Barrett is an absolutist. Your continued meddling with the right may get you more than you bargained for. We will not only keep our assault-rifle-shaped semi-auto sporting rifles, but we could also get actual, real assault rifles manufactured after 1986.

Keep pushing your luck, you communist shits.

You admit your argument is based on fiction . You just don’t care

Funny

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Common use" was not part of the 2A. It was some fiction Scalia used to decouple gun rights FROM the 2A.

It was a fiction, but it doesn't matter whether gun rights are coupled with or decoupled from the 2A. The 2A operates to protect the right of the people, not the militia, not the states, not the necessity, etc. You can't get past what the 2A ACTUALLY DOES, and you and your communist won't amend it, because you know that this time around it will say, **** YOU, WE GET NUKES!!!

Scalia was a chickenshit in the Heller decision. He knew what he should have done, but was too afraid of the consequences and demonstrated a REAL lack of faith in the American People. The PLAIN LANGUAGE of the 2A protects the individual right, and was meant to be a guarantee that the new FedGov would have NO JURISDICTION OR POWER over the use/sale/manufacture of arms. Thus, ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

You better pray to the god of gun-grabbing communist pukes that this issue never gets back before this SCOTUS because Barrett is an absolutist. Your continued meddling with the right may get you more than you bargained for. We will not only keep our assault-rifle-shaped semi-auto sporting rifles, but we could also get actual, real assault rifles manufactured after 1986.

Keep pushing your luck, you communist shits.

You admit your argument is based on fiction . You just don’t care

Funny

My argument is NOT based on Scalia's fiction.

Let's see if you can follow.

The 2A bans any federal action related to the use/sale/manufacture of arms. That's it.

You can throw around all the bullshit you want, but that is a fact.

Scalia was too chickenshit to state what he knew at the time -- The 1934 NFA and everything since is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

Why was he so chickenshit? THE RESULT. We get machine guns and you can't stop it.