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

[schmidlap]

Remember the old ads themed “I am the NRA” featuring ordinary citizens?

No, but they were just actors, and not targets for indictments in the current travails.

 

[schmidlap]

The problem is that 5 demigods on the supreme court can change that in the blink of a eye

Five did, in 2008, but I don't see the Court restoring the traditional interpretation anytime soon.

 

[BULLDOG]

Nobody wants to do away with the 2nd.

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

 

[BS Filter]

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.
Fuck the left.

 

[schmidlap]

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

Having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia is clearly a determinant concerning militia.

Given that the "assault weapon" as we now define it did not exist in 1939, and given that the right to bear arms had not been extended by the Court beyond a militia to apply to the citizenry until 2008, and given that Justice Scalia had noted at that time that "some limitations that can be imposed," and "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time” makes it clear that revision predicated upon changing technology and societal understanding is eminently applicable.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

no such thing as a ghost gun unless Casper has one
It takes a lot longer to build a rifle than ding bat jo said.
you've been sorely misinformed
for it to be a so-called ghost gun you would need to get an 80% lower it takes a few hours to drill the correct holes you would need an 80% lower jig and the correct bits, you would need a router or heavy duty drill press

and a little FYI not everybody can do this and it work

Check, you are against registration numbers for criminals.

I Made an Untraceable AR-15 'Ghost Gun' in My Office—and It Was Easy

I have no technical understanding of firearms and little mastery of power tools. Still, I made a fully functional AR-15.

www.wired.com

anyone who has built one knows this is a lie the guy is a lying sack of shit
An 80% lower has millwork that has to be done You need at least a router or a drill press
and dumbass criminals don't build ar's they steal them

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is precedence in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled upon
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.

Having a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia is clearly a determinant concerning militia.

Given that the "assault weapon" as we now define it did not exist in 1939, and given that the right to bear arms had not been extended by the Court beyond a militia to apply to the citizenry until 2008, and given that Justice Scalia had noted at that time that "some limitations that can be imposed," and "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time” makes it clear that revision predicated upon changing technology and societal understanding is eminently applicable.

The government doesn't have a second amendment right it doesn't apply to the national guard
It applies to the citizenry

 

[bigrebnc1775]

and all that will happen lot of dead politicians and justices

So what are you saying exactly Biggie - You gonna act out dude?

get in the way and find out

 

[Mac-7]

but they were just actors, and not targets for indictments in the current travails.

They summed up the problem of the gun grabbers nicely

we the people are the real stumbling block to libs gun free nirvana

 

[Leviticus]

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

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.


What part of that can a liberals dumb ass not understand?

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

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

So which side of the forecast coming civil war will your National Guard fight on?

They will fight on the side of the United States of America and the United States government just like the US military will.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

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.


What part of that can a liberals dumb ass not understand?

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

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

So which side of the forecast coming civil war will your National Guard fight on?

They will fight on the side of the United States of America and the United States government just like the US military will.

You gun grabbers are so easily destroyed in a debate. Apparently you never read what the SCOTUS said on the issue. I suggest you do so before you make yourself look stupid. Oh, wait! Too late!

 

[DrLove]

and all that will happen lot of dead politicians and justices

So what are you saying exactly Biggie - You gonna act out dude?

get in the way and find out

SKEERY!!

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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 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.

That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.

It does nothing of the kind; it only proves the right wing has nothing fallacy of appeals to ignorance.

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 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.

That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.

Wrong.

The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.

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.

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

View attachment 478066

Your quote.....A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined.

With 30,000 gun deaths a year, our people are anything but disciplined

Where do the majority of those gun deaths happen ?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.

Wrong

No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.

WHAT A LOAD OF BULL

More ignorance from the right.

Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.

All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

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.


What part of that can a liberals dumb ass not understand?

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

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

So which side of the forecast coming civil war will your National Guard fight on?

They will fight on the side of the United States of America and the United States government just like the US military will.

You mean the people who took an oath to support and defend the Constitution ? If you think the National Guard are going to fire on their neighbors you are a moron.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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 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.

That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.

Wrong.

The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.

No...they don't. The leftists on the 9th, 4th, 2nd circuit courts ignore the rulings in Heller, Miller, Caetano and just make up their own decisions when it comes to rifle and magazine bans as well as carry permits.....as the 9th ruling on magazines and concealed carry show.....

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions or carry permits.

A law or measure is presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

The "left” in fact follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.

 

[toobfreak]

..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.

Wrong

No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.

WHAT A LOAD OF BULL

More ignorance from the right.

Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.

All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Wrong again with your clay pigeon arguments.

 

[2aguy]

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 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.

That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.

Wrong.

The "left" follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.

No...they don't. The leftists on the 9th, 4th, 2nd circuit courts ignore the rulings in Heller, Miller, Caetano and just make up their own decisions when it comes to rifle and magazine bans as well as carry permits.....as the 9th ruling on magazines and concealed carry show.....

Wrong.

The Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of magazine capacity restrictions or carry permits.

A law or measure is presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise (see US v. Morrison (2000)).

The "left” in fact follows what the Supreme Court says about the Second Amendment, unlike far too many on the right.

Wrong.....again, the 4th, 7th, 9th, 2nd circuit courts are all dominated by left wing judges and they have all ignored the actual Supreme Court rulings in Heller, Caetano, Miller, Macdonald.......and on and on........they have ignored Heller and the rest, making up their own, anti-gun decisions while flagrantly ignoring actual Supreme Court decisions......

 

[2aguy]

..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.

Wrong

No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.

WHAT A LOAD OF BULL

More ignorance from the right.

Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.

All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

Here.....Caetano invalidates all 3 of the below......and the lower courts ignore both Heller and Caetano, as well as miller when they ban magazines, rifles and other weapons........

this case involved banning stun guns, yet goes on to invalidate magazine bans, rifle bans,..........and the lower circuit courts pretend as if this ruling and it's proscriptions against banning weapons and magazines doesn't exist....

Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.

Heller, 554 U. S., at 627, and that the Second Amendment accordingly guarantees the right to carry weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,”
----
The court also opined that a weapon’s unusualness depends on whether “it is a weapon of warfare to be used by the militia.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. It asserted that we followed such an approach in Miller and “approved its use in Heller.” 470 Mass., at 780, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. But Heller actually said that it would be a “startling reading” of Miller to conclude that “only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.”
-----
the Second Amendment therefore protects such weapons as a class, regardless of any particular weapon’s suitability for military use.
-----
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.

 

[2aguy]

..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.

Wrong

No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.

WHAT A LOAD OF BULL

More ignorance from the right.

Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.

All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.

The court reasoned that stun guns are unprotected because they were “not ‘in common use at the time’ of enactment of the Second Amendment,” id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693 (quoting Heller, supra, at 627), and because they fall within the “traditional prohibition against carrying dangerous and unusual weapons,” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (citing Heller, supra, at 627). II
---
Heller, 554 U. S., at 627, and that the Second Amendment accordingly guarantees the right to carry weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” id., at 625.
-----
A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual.
----
As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056.
But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.

First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.

See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).

Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.

..........."shall not be infringed" Many states are in violation right now.

Wrong

No state's firearm regulatory measures violates the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court having never invalidated such measures.

WHAT A LOAD OF BULL

More ignorance from the right.

Cite a Supreme Court case invalidating a state’s firearm regulatory measure.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s AWB.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s magazine capacity restriction.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s UBC requirement.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s may-issue law concerning concealed carry permits.

The Court has never ruled on a state’s waiting period or gun purchase limits.

All the above measures are perfectly Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise.