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

[Rigby5]

The Dick Act covers the militia/NG

And it is still in effect

The Militia Act of 1903 is not really legal.
It takes over too much control over what is supposed to be and used to be the state role.
{...
The Militia Act of 1903, also known as the Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 or the Dick Act, was legislation enacted by the United States Congress to create an early National Guard and which codified the circumstances under which the Guard could be federalized. It also provided federal funds to pay for equipment and training, including annual summer encampments. The new National Guard was to organize units of similar form and quality to those of the regular Army, and intended to achieve the same training, education, and readiness requirements as active duty units.
...}

 

[Lesh]

The Militia Act of 1903 is not really legal.

What does a Russian sock puppet know about it...

 

[Rigby5]

Why? You want central government control of firearms, I think everyone has the right to own and bear arms. You believe in Marxism apparently and that is insane.

Russia has zero national gun laws.

 

[Leo123]

Russia has zero national gun laws.

That is not true...

Russian Gun Laws


Russia has tough gun laws on the books. It's illegal for Russian citizens to own automatic and semi-automatic guns. It's possible to apply for a handgun or shotgun license, though citizens are required to provide reasons such as hunting or target shooting.

The U.S. Has More Guns, But Russia Has More Murders

A prominent Russian lawmaker mocked the U.S. during the mass shooting in Washington this week. But statistics show that Russia has more killings each year than the U.S. despite a much smaller population.

www.npr.org

 

[Lesh]

Russia has zero national gun laws.

Why do you lie so outrageously?

As of 2013 Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities, as well as for collection purposes. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. Initially, purchases are limited to long smooth-bore firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules (18 ft⋅lbf). After five years of shotgun ownership, rifles may be purchased. Handguns are generally not allowed, but with the growing popularity of practical shooting events and competitions in Russia in recent years (e.g. IPSC), handgun ownership has now been allowed and the handguns have to be stored at a shooting club. Rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 500 mm (20 in) long are prohibited, as are firearms which shoot in bursts or have more than a 10-cartridge capacity. Suppressors are prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless they are part of a registered gun collection.[2]

 

[Rigby5]

.... the thread is a year old.

Why are we resurrecting it?

It is always going to be a valid thread as until we ever get rid of all federal weapons legislation.

 

[Lesh]

It is always going to be a valid thread as until we ever get rid of all federal weapons legislation.

Sock puppets like to stir shit up

 

[Rigby5]

That is not true...

Russian Gun Laws


Russia has tough gun laws on the books. It's illegal for Russian citizens to own automatic and semi-automatic guns. It's possible to apply for a handgun or shotgun license, though citizens are required to provide reasons such as hunting or target shooting.

The U.S. Has More Guns, But Russia Has More Murders

A prominent Russian lawmaker mocked the U.S. during the mass shooting in Washington this week. But statistics show that Russia has more killings each year than the U.S. despite a much smaller population.

www.npr.org

You are correct.
I was looking as an older source.
But semi-automatic is not restricted any more than any gun.
You need to be licensed for any gun, but semi-auto is not any thing additional.
{...
Applicants for a gun owner’s licence in Russia are required to establish a genuine reason to possess a firearm, for example hunting, target shooting, collection, personal protection, security3 78
...
In Russia, private possession of semi-automatic assault weapons is not specifically prohibited in law64 67 68
...}

Guns in Russia — Firearms, gun law and gun control

Gun law, gun control statistics, number of guns in Russia, gun deaths, firearm facts and policy, armed violence, public health and development

www.gunpolicy.org

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you lie so outrageously?

As of 2013 Russian citizens over 18 years of age can obtain a firearms license after attending gun-safety classes and passing a federal test and background check. Firearms may be acquired for self-defense, hunting, or sports activities, as well as for collection purposes. Carrying permits may be issued for hunting firearms licensed for hunting purposes. Initially, purchases are limited to long smooth-bore firearms and pneumatic weapons with a muzzle energy of up to 25 joules (18 ft⋅lbf). After five years of shotgun ownership, rifles may be purchased. Handguns are generally not allowed, but with the growing popularity of practical shooting events and competitions in Russia in recent years (e.g. IPSC), handgun ownership has now been allowed and the handguns have to be stored at a shooting club. Rifles and shotguns with barrels less than 500 mm (20 in) long are prohibited, as are firearms which shoot in bursts or have more than a 10-cartridge capacity. Suppressors are prohibited. An individual cannot possess more than ten guns (up to five shotguns and up to five rifles) unless they are part of a registered gun collection.[2]

Because I was familiar with older gun laws, and they have changed since then,

 

[Lesh]

Because I was familiar with older gun laws, and they have changed since then,

Horse shit

Go away

 

[miketx]

.... the thread is a year old.

Why are we resurrecting it?

Why not? What difference does it make? Has the 2nd changed, been banned?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

What a blind, stupid boot licker you must be.
Why not move to Cuba already?

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

All I know is.......
You stupid people keep doing nothing and you lose it all.

Want a sure fire way to fall to tyrants?

 

[Open Bolt]

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.

The government doesn't even have a militia presently ("not having a militia" also violates the Constitution).


-----------------------------------------------

Well form some damn militias and pass regulations on them

That is not what well regulated means.

A well regulated militia is one that is well armed and well trained.


-----------------------------------------------

STUPID FUCK. The 2A refers to a right of the PEOPLE, free and clear of the government, to carry and bear arms against the GOVERNMENT, and you think it is the right of the government to carry out armies. Show us where it says that here:

Army National Guard

Army National Guard

www.nationalguard.com

or here:

National Guard (United States) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The National Guard is not the militia since they are part of a standing army.

However, the government is responsible for organizing the militia.

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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;


-----------------------------------------------

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;


-----------------------------------------------

Nowhere in the Second Amendment does that short paragraph say a, "State Militia." It does say that, "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." It does not state that the militia is formed by the state, only that a well-regulated militia can be formed from the civilian population, using their own weapons, to protect that state from an enemy.
The founders recognized that the major players that helped the Continental Army win the war against England, were the "private" citizens who formed "their own regulated militias" and, who defended their states, while on occasions working in conjunction with the Continental Army. But, they were not officially state militias, only private citizens that formed groups using guerilla tactics to beat the British Army.

Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power . . . .
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;


-----------------------------------------------

Hate to break it to ya, but the previous ban was already deemed constitutional. But do continue the yammer about "well regulated militias".

If the government were to bring back the militia, militiamen would have the right to have full-auto weapons. Grenades and bazookas too.

No previous ruling will change that fact.


-----------------------------------------------

You may not know where you are going but its clear to most gun owners
you will kill the 2nd one tiny step at a time till all the guns are gone just as they are in most other countries

Well, they will certainly try.

They will fail.

The NRA will continue to protect the Second Amendment.


-----------------------------------------------

Yes and since the National guard handles 100% of all militia duties in this country the Second amendment logically means that you're not allowed on a gun unless you sign up with the National guard

Not even close. Nothing limits gun ownership to only militiamen.

In fact, non-militiamen have an express right to have guns for the private defense of their homes.


-----------------------------------------------

Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.

First, those are not assault weapons bans. Assault weapons were all but banned some 88 years ago.

What was banned in the 1990s was a bunch of ordinary guns that merely had harmless cosmetic features like pistol grips on them.

Second, banning a gun simply because it has a harmless cosmetic feature on it is very much unconstitutional. The fact that Congress violated everyone's rights in the 1990s and some states do it even today doesn't make it OK to do so.

Some governments in the Middle East get away with committing genocide. That doesn't mean that they are not committing a crime.


-----------------------------------------------

Totally not true.
Number one. The right to keep arms is, in fact, a limit on the US federal govt (and now state govts). This means that the US federal govt (and now state govts) cannot prevent you from owning arms.
They can prevent you from having nukes, SAMS, tanks and other weaponry, as long as individuals can own "arms" then they can limit which arms they can have.
"assault rifles" can be banned, and individuals can still "keep arms".

The militia needs weapons with enough firepower to allow them to repel foreign invasions.

Denying them weapons with that level of firepower is a violation of the Second Amendment.

 

[Rigby5]

What does a Russian sock puppet know about it...

According to the 9th and 10th amendments, the feds only can legally do what they are explicitly authorized for.
And the feds have no authorization for weapons legislation.

 

[Open Bolt]

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

The National Guard is not the militia. They are members of a standing army.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

Agreed.

 

[Open Bolt]

Will the law take those weapons away from the states National Guard?

No.

Or are they considered the state militia?

No.

Should each state organize there own citizens militia?

Yes.

 

[Moonglow]

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.

I suggest you read up on The Brady Bill

 

[Open Bolt]

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.

If so, those laws violate freedom of association and freedom of speech.

I'm not saying that people who call themselves militia are actually militia, but it is not a crime for someone to call themselves militia.

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd. That is bullshit spewed by the NRA You know, that gun nut organization that is bankrupt because the top gun nuts stole your money?

That is incorrect. The Freedom Haters do want to abolish the Second Amendment.

 

[FA_Q2]

Why not? What difference does it make? Has the 2nd changed, been banned?

Why not?

Because you would be better served with a new thread that contains a newer, more relevant example.