Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protectedWrong U.S. vs Miller 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.Wrong. It specifically dealt with one weapon and one weapon only. And it upheld the lower courts. The sawed off shotgun is outside of ALL sane weapons. It cannot be used for home or self defense. It has no place in Military Operations. It's a short ranged maiming weapon only. This is the reason it was NOT exempted from the 1934 Firearms Act. It was actually outside of the Firearms act completely. Miller V dealt with whether it could be used by Organized Militia and it ruled it could not. Therefore, it was NOT a Military style firearm at all. Your whole argument is flawed. Please stop bothering people with this nonsense.
You can read into it any way you wish but the Courts disagree with you and they are the only ones that count.
California learned that if you specifically use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" it holds up in court. Oregon is learning that "Assault Rifle" does not. California learned from Boston, Mass. which also has an AR-15 specific ban that was the first to be held up in court.
Get over this nonsense.
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.From the ruling:
‘Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’
Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf
This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.
Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.
Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.
Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.
The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’
No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protectedWrong U.S. vs Miller 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.
You can read into it any way you wish but the Courts disagree with you and they are the only ones that count.
California learned that if you specifically use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" it holds up in court. Oregon is learning that "Assault Rifle" does not. California learned from Boston, Mass. which also has an AR-15 specific ban that was the first to be held up in court.
Get over this nonsense.
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
The AR 15 is the most commonly used weapon and is most effective for use during war or in self-defense.supported by U.S. VS. mILLER 1939Heller used Miller as precedence Miller has been used by most supreme court rulings AR15 and other semi-automatic weapons are protected by the second amendment.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protectedYou can read into it any way you wish but the Courts disagree with you and they are the only ones that count.
California learned that if you specifically use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" it holds up in court. Oregon is learning that "Assault Rifle" does not. California learned from Boston, Mass. which also has an AR-15 specific ban that was the first to be held up in court.
Get over this nonsense.
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
And Heller says "Normal Weapons". It made the ruling of 15 rounds in Colorado for Mags stick. And it bounced the ruling of 10 not stick. What Heller did was to define "Normal". It didn't exactly explain it but it let out enough to allow the States to determine what they determine as "Normal". And if a State decides that an AR-15 is not "Normal" for home or self defense, the State can bar it. And that's is about as far as the Supreme Court has dared to rule. Don't look for the Supreme Court to be your savior. Your time would be better spent going after the many State Governments. And,even then, that may not work when the voter decides that your bought and paid for dog and ponies that are in office overstepped their boundries.
"Other" semi autos might be but the AR-15, when spelled out directly is not. That has already stood up in court in both California and Boston, Mass. in high Federal Courts. Keep lying out your ass. But until you get the Supreme Court to agree with you, the AR-15 can and has been ruled as NOT a self defense or Home Defense weapon. You can read into Heller till the cows come home but that is all they ruled on. No mention of anything other than Handguns. If you are talking about the Dissent, the Dissent is just the losers mouthing off and it doesn't mean a thing legally.
No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protectedYou can read into it any way you wish but the Courts disagree with you and they are the only ones that count.
California learned that if you specifically use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" it holds up in court. Oregon is learning that "Assault Rifle" does not. California learned from Boston, Mass. which also has an AR-15 specific ban that was the first to be held up in court.
Get over this nonsense.
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
Nope, the left deserves all that he said and so much more for what they have done and what they want to do.I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.
You're a fucking pig.
We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.From the ruling:
‘Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’
Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf
This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.
Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.
Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.
Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.
The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’
This is the common law for the common defense:
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.
It should not be about "grabbing guns" but about "grabbing gun lovers and regulating them well until we have no more security problems in our free States."
Nope, the left deserves all that he said and so much more for what they have done and what they want to do.I hope and pray that every white liberal's family will be raped and murdered in front of them. Shot by the weapons they worked so hard to ban. Raped, robbed and murdered by those who they worked so hard to gain admission (legally or illegally) into our nation.
This is my wish for every white liberal.
Cheers fuckers.
You're a fucking pig.
White liberals in the west know that white South Africans literally go through all of what Tijn wants to happen to white liberals and yet these monsters gave the black supremacist murderous South African government the green light to keep going in numerous mediums.
Raping and murdering these disgusting animals is too good for them though, they deserve to be beaten until their lungs collapse after being choked and starved for days. Make them wish they were waterboarded every day of their lives until you decide they are ready to be sent to hell.
Yes in 1939 the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protected
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
In the AR-15 case, it's already been done. And will continue to be done. You need to buy more while you can.
the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.From the ruling:
‘Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’
Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf
This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.
Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.
Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.
Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.
The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’
This is the common law for the common defense:
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.
It should not be about "grabbing guns" but about "grabbing gun lovers and regulating them well until we have no more security problems in our free States."
I'll be so glad when all the states finally ban the AR-15 and it's various clones. That will do 3 things. 1. It will take away the cult of Mass Shootings 2. It will lower the body count at mass shootings. 3. When you decide to defend your ARs with your ARs, we don't have you in here crying about it since you won't be around anymore.
Yes in 1939 the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
In the AR-15 case, it's already been done. And will continue to be done. You need to buy more while you can.
the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.From the ruling:
‘Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’
Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf
This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.
Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.
Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.
Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.
The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’
This is the common law for the common defense:
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.
It should not be about "grabbing guns" but about "grabbing gun lovers and regulating them well until we have no more security problems in our free States."
I'll be so glad when all the states finally ban the AR-15 and it's various clones. That will do 3 things. 1. It will take away the cult of Mass Shootings 2. It will lower the body count at mass shootings. 3. When you decide to defend your ARs with your ARs, we don't have you in here crying about it since you won't be around anymore.
Yes it ruled against sawed-off shotguns but the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun it's a weapon of war in common use of the time that is acceptable for the efficiency of a well-regulated militia U.S. vs Miller 1939Yes in 1939 the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
In the AR-15 case, it's already been done. And will continue to be done. You need to buy more while you can.
Wrong, duckbill. It ruled against a sawed off shotgun from being in the hands of an individual and crossing state lines. Keep reading into it. Sooner or later, you are going to announce that Miller V also ruled that the Earth is flat.
But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedencethe AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.From the ruling:
‘Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’
Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf
This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.
Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.
Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.
Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.
The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’
This is the common law for the common defense:
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.
It should not be about "grabbing guns" but about "grabbing gun lovers and regulating them well until we have no more security problems in our free States."
I'll be so glad when all the states finally ban the AR-15 and it's various clones. That will do 3 things. 1. It will take away the cult of Mass Shootings 2. It will lower the body count at mass shootings. 3. When you decide to defend your ARs with your ARs, we don't have you in here crying about it since you won't be around anymore.
hate to break your bubble but the Supreme Court never has made that ruling. If so, let's see it word for word so I can fact check it. There is that nasty thing that trips you up all the time. Facts need to be verified. And the Courts have been upholding the banning of the AR-15 and it's various clones. California just in the last couple of days and in Boston
Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
Yes it ruled against sawed-off shotguns but the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun it's a weapon of war in common use of the time that is acceptable for the efficiency of a well-regulated militia U.S. vs Miller 1939Yes in 1939 the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
In the AR-15 case, it's already been done. And will continue to be done. You need to buy more while you can.
Wrong, duckbill. It ruled against a sawed off shotgun from being in the hands of an individual and crossing state lines. Keep reading into it. Sooner or later, you are going to announce that Miller V also ruled that the Earth is flat.
We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protectedYou can read into it any way you wish but the Courts disagree with you and they are the only ones that count.
California learned that if you specifically use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" it holds up in court. Oregon is learning that "Assault Rifle" does not. California learned from Boston, Mass. which also has an AR-15 specific ban that was the first to be held up in court.
Get over this nonsense.
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
There are no states rights when it comes to a federally protected right.We are quibbling this sovereign States' right under our Constitutional form of government.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.The unorganized militia is every able body man and woman and is supported by law.I read it exactly as they ruled it. Any weapon that would be of use to a militia AR15 and in common use are protected
Hell, you antigunners call them weapons of war. What better use for a weapon of war than by members of the unorganized Militia?
Unorganized Militia are a bunch of gunnutters dress in green pickle suits running around the woods. In the event of a "Revolution" exactly which of these "Unorganized Militias" will be in charge. There is going to be more lead thrown at each other than at the Organized Militia, the Military, or the Law Enforcement. Give a new meaning to the word "Unorganized".
10 USC § 311 - 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.
You are confusing your pickle suited Vigilantees with the SDFs of a given state. The State has the Right to call up it's citizens to the SDF when it feels the need to and those people (except for some exceptions) are not answerable to the Federal Government. You want to not be a gunnnutter running willy nilly around the woods in a pickle suit, sign up for the SDF if on exists in your state.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
ok name a weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time?Yes it ruled against sawed-off shotguns but the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun it's a weapon of war in common use of the time that is acceptable for the efficiency of a well-regulated militia U.S. vs Miller 1939Yes in 1939 the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.No, the state does not have the right to control a federally protected right. The 14th amendment set that rule already.
In the AR-15 case, it's already been done. And will continue to be done. You need to buy more while you can.
Wrong, duckbill. It ruled against a sawed off shotgun from being in the hands of an individual and crossing state lines. Keep reading into it. Sooner or later, you are going to announce that Miller V also ruled that the Earth is flat.
You are reading into Miller once again. What's next, is it going to tell you that the Earth is Flat? Will it predict that someday, some unknown Alphabet Government Agency will fake a moon landing?
But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedencethe AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.From the ruling:
‘Heller…does plainly provide that the M-16—and weapons “like” it—can be banned as dangerous and unusual weapons. Accordingly, the proper question is: are the semiautomatic rifles at issue here “like” the military’s M-16, a historically banned dangerous and unusual weapon? If so, the semiautomatic rifles are similarly outside the scope of the Second Amendment. This test makes practical sense. It is undisputed that the M-16 is outside the scope of the Second Amendment—thus, if a weapon is essentially the same as the M-16, it is not protected by the Second Amendment merely because gun manufacturers have given it a different model number and dubbed it a “civilian rifle.” Gun manufacturers cannot determine the scope of Second Amendment protection; they cannot, for example, develop a grenade launcher, dub it a “civilian” model, and thereby bring it within the scope of the Second Amendment.
As to whether the semiautomatic rifles at issue are “like” the M-16, the Court agrees with Kolbe’s conclusion that “AR-15-type rifles are ‘like’ M16 rifles under any standard definition of that term.”’
Rupp-semi-auto-California-ruling-7222019.pdf
This addresses the fundamental issue with regard to the constitutionality of AWBs, AR 15 rifles and carbines in particular: are such weapons ‘in common use’ or are they ‘dangerous and usual,’ where their possession is not entitled to Second Amendment protections; current Second Amendment jurisprudence holds the latter to be the case.
Note that regardless how ubiquitous AR platform rifles and carbines might be, that doesn’t mitigate the fact that they are similar enough to M-16s to warrant their prohibition – indeed, the argument that M-16s are select-fire and AR 15s are semi-automatic only is devoid of legal merit.
Also devoid of legal merit are rhetorical semantics as to what is or is not an ‘assault rifle,’ what the military might designate to be an ‘assault rifle,’ and how AR 15s might be marketed to civilian consumers. Just as gun manufacturers lack the authority to determine the scope of the Second Amendment, so too does the military lack such authority.
Therefore, in order for AWBs to be invalidated as un-Constitutional, the ‘argument’ that AR 15s are semi-automatic only and that they are not considered to be assault weapons in a military context needs to be abandoned.
The appropriate argument needs to be that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use,’ particularly as weapons of self-defense.
Of course, the Supreme Court will need to accept that argument and rule that AR 15s are weapons ‘in common use’ and entitled to Second Amendment protections.
Until the Supreme Court makes such a ruling, AWBs remain perfectly Constitutional and in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – no matter how ineffective or pointless such a ban might be; that a law might be bad or onerous doesn’t render it ‘un-Constitutional.’
This is the common law for the common defense:
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.
It should not be about "grabbing guns" but about "grabbing gun lovers and regulating them well until we have no more security problems in our free States."
I'll be so glad when all the states finally ban the AR-15 and it's various clones. That will do 3 things. 1. It will take away the cult of Mass Shootings 2. It will lower the body count at mass shootings. 3. When you decide to defend your ARs with your ARs, we don't have you in here crying about it since you won't be around anymore.
hate to break your bubble but the Supreme Court never has made that ruling. If so, let's see it word for word so I can fact check it. There is that nasty thing that trips you up all the time. Facts need to be verified. And the Courts have been upholding the banning of the AR-15 and it's various clones. California just in the last couple of days and in Boston
Federal judge upholds Massachusetts ban on AR-15, large capacity magazines
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.
ok name a weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time?Yes it ruled against sawed-off shotguns but the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun it's a weapon of war in common use of the time that is acceptable for the efficiency of a well-regulated militia U.S. vs Miller 1939Yes in 1939 the supreme court ruled in favor of weapons of war in the hands of citizens supplied by those citizens weapons in common use of the time.In the AR-15 case, it's already been done. And will continue to be done. You need to buy more while you can.
Wrong, duckbill. It ruled against a sawed off shotgun from being in the hands of an individual and crossing state lines. Keep reading into it. Sooner or later, you are going to announce that Miller V also ruled that the Earth is flat.
You are reading into Miller once again. What's next, is it going to tell you that the Earth is Flat? Will it predict that someday, some unknown Alphabet Government Agency will fake a moon landing?
