District Court Upholds California AWB

[bigrebnc1775]

We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.

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

But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedence
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.

Heller is the most important ruling in modern times. It made the ruling using the term "Normal". It didn't define what "Normal" is. The Feds can't. That definition is up to the States. The ONLY reason the Supreme Court was involved was that it was DC which didn't have a State Supreme Court being that it's not a state. Heller V like McDonald V had to do with a City denying the ability of a citizen to have a handgun in their home. What came out of both was that they did have that right. But the City had the right to require registration and licensing of both the weapon and the person. Reading anything else from those two are right up there with claiming that they also ruled that Space Aliens are kept in a deep basement in Cleveland.

Heller got the precedence from MILLER. In common use of the time

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

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.

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 1939

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.

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

But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedence
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.

Heller is the most important ruling in modern times. It made the ruling using the term "Normal". It didn't define what "Normal" is. The Feds can't. That definition is up to the States. The ONLY reason the Supreme Court was involved was that it was DC which didn't have a State Supreme Court being that it's not a state. Heller V like McDonald V had to do with a City denying the ability of a citizen to have a handgun in their home. What came out of both was that they did have that right. But the City had the right to require registration and licensing of both the weapon and the person. Reading anything else from those two are right up there with claiming that they also ruled that Space Aliens are kept in a deep basement in Cleveland.

Heller got the precedence from MILLER. In common use of the time

And the Supreme Court applied it to Handguns. They also went as far to say "Normal" handguns which has been used as a presedense to a couple of other court rulings where 10 rounds was too few and more than 15 was too many. The operative word here is "Normal". The AR is not a Normal Home or personal Defense Weapon by any stretch of the imagination. A M-203 makes a lousy home defense weapon.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

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 1939

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

The only thing that came out of Miller was that a 12 in barreled no choak shotgun has no use in either a military or home defense. And that is all it said. And Heller didn't address anything other than the "Normal" handgun to be used in Home Defense.

Stop this nonsense.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

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 1939

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.

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

But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedence
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.

Heller is the most important ruling in modern times. It made the ruling using the term "Normal". It didn't define what "Normal" is. The Feds can't. That definition is up to the States. The ONLY reason the Supreme Court was involved was that it was DC which didn't have a State Supreme Court being that it's not a state. Heller V like McDonald V had to do with a City denying the ability of a citizen to have a handgun in their home. What came out of both was that they did have that right. But the City had the right to require registration and licensing of both the weapon and the person. Reading anything else from those two are right up there with claiming that they also ruled that Space Aliens are kept in a deep basement in Cleveland.

Heller got the precedence from MILLER. In common use of the time

And the Supreme Court applied it to Handguns. They also went as far to say "Normal" handguns which has been used as a presedense to a couple of other court rulings where 10 rounds was too few and more than 15 was too many. The operative word here is "Normal". The AR is not a Normal Home or personal Defense Weapon by any stretch of the imagination. A M-203 makes a lousy home defense weapon.

No militia has been armed with sidearms alone they had rifles therefore you are mistakenly wrong

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 1939

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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 1939

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

The only thing that came out of Miller was that a 12 in barreled no choak shotgun has no use in either a military or home defense. And that is all it said. And Heller didn't address anything other than the "Normal" handgun to be used in Home Defense.

Stop this nonsense.

No incorrect this is what came out of Miller those weapons of war isn't that what you antigunners call the AR15?
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.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

There we no real antigunners back then. There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other. Don't let a little history and facts get in your way. Now move on to the next stupid subject.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

The only thing that came out of Miller was that a 12 in barreled no choak shotgun has no use in either a military or home defense. And that is all it said. And Heller didn't address anything other than the "Normal" handgun to be used in Home Defense.

Stop this nonsense.

No incorrect this is what came out of Miller those weapons of war isn't that what you antigunners call the AR15?
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.

Considering the ruling of Miller specifically said that the 12 in shotgun barrel had no use in either the Military or Home Defense, it appears you are in error and are reading into it something that isn't there. What's next, are you going to read in where the Sun revolves around the Sun?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

There we no real antigunners back then. There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other. Don't let a little history and facts get in your way. Now move on to the next stupid subject.

Not talking about back then dumbass but yes since you mentioned it there were antigunners called democrats that tried to keep blacks from being armed. And anything you said after that was irrelevant.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

The only thing that came out of Miller was that a 12 in barreled no choak shotgun has no use in either a military or home defense. And that is all it said. And Heller didn't address anything other than the "Normal" handgun to be used in Home Defense.

Stop this nonsense.

No incorrect this is what came out of Miller those weapons of war isn't that what you antigunners call the AR15?
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.

Considering the ruling of Miller specifically said that the 12 in shotgun barrel had no use in either the Military or Home Defense, it appears you are in error and are reading into it something that isn't there. What's next, are you going to read in where the Sun revolves around the Sun?

OK, the AR15 is not a sawed-off shotgun and is the weapon that does 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.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

Which was expanded upon Heller to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

Which was expanded upon Heller to include all weapons in common use for traditionally legal purposes.
The anti-gun loons have to lie to themselves.

I agree this issue needs to be put to rest and for good.

 

[2aguy]

and I stated that mil-spec doesn't make it superior.

No but in order to be called Milspec, I already stated what the requirement is. I also already stated that some builds (using mostly milspec parts) where the AR is superior. But those builds would be well beyond the common persons pocket book. It's been nicked the Rolls Royce of the ARs. Even so, the difference between even the 500 buck AR, the LE6920 and the M-16 are so minimal that it's not even worth figuring. And the test done (all of them) proves that time and time again. Other Manufacturers try to come up with new designs to replace the AR series (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 is part of that Family) but as a battle rifle, all of them have proven to be A. Too expensive B. Doesn't do as good a job C. Doesn't hold up to battle field conditions D. Is too Heavy. In the end, all of the accepted battle field rifles are build on the AR design because the AR is built with the Battle Field as it's only function. No pretty cup holders, no lip gloss applicators. That means, if you class the M-16 as just a battle field rifle then you MUST classify the AR-15 as one as well.

Who cares about milspec? Milspec doesn't mean it's the best you can get. I can be as effective with civilian marketed parts as I can with Milspec.

You do know you are arguing for the banning of the AR, don't you.

U.S. vs Miller ruled that military-style firearms are protected by the second amendment.

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.

They used sawed off shotguns in the trenches of World War 1, you dipstick...

 

[2aguy]

Who cares about milspec? Milspec doesn't mean it's the best you can get. I can be as effective with civilian marketed parts as I can with Milspec.

You do know you are arguing for the banning of the AR, don't you.

U.S. vs Miller ruled that military-style firearms are protected by the second amendment.

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.

Wrong 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.

No, moron, it doesn't hold up in court......the 9th and the 7th and the 4th circuit are rogue courts, and they are deliberately ignoring Heller, Miller, Caetano, and what Scalia specifically explained in Friedman v Highland park which came after Heller....he stated the AR-15, by name, is protected as are all similar rifles.....you moron.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No but in order to be called Milspec, I already stated what the requirement is. I also already stated that some builds (using mostly milspec parts) where the AR is superior. But those builds would be well beyond the common persons pocket book. It's been nicked the Rolls Royce of the ARs. Even so, the difference between even the 500 buck AR, the LE6920 and the M-16 are so minimal that it's not even worth figuring. And the test done (all of them) proves that time and time again. Other Manufacturers try to come up with new designs to replace the AR series (Yes, Dorathy, the M-16 is part of that Family) but as a battle rifle, all of them have proven to be A. Too expensive B. Doesn't do as good a job C. Doesn't hold up to battle field conditions D. Is too Heavy. In the end, all of the accepted battle field rifles are build on the AR design because the AR is built with the Battle Field as it's only function. No pretty cup holders, no lip gloss applicators. That means, if you class the M-16 as just a battle field rifle then you MUST classify the AR-15 as one as well.

Who cares about milspec? Milspec doesn't mean it's the best you can get. I can be as effective with civilian marketed parts as I can with Milspec.

You do know you are arguing for the banning of the AR, don't you.

U.S. vs Miller ruled that military-style firearms are protected by the second amendment.

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.

They used sawed off shotguns in the trenches of World War 1, you dipstick...

sawed-off shotguns were the equivalent to a handgun which at the time most members of at the unorganized militia would not be armed with a handgun.

 

[2aguy]

We have a Second Article of Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

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.

the AR15 because it is in common use cannot be banned according to the supreme court.

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

But yes they did U.S. VS Miller 1939 which Heller and McDonald both used Miller as precedence
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.

Heller is the most important ruling in modern times. It made the ruling using the term "Normal". It didn't define what "Normal" is. The Feds can't. That definition is up to the States. The ONLY reason the Supreme Court was involved was that it was DC which didn't have a State Supreme Court being that it's not a state. Heller V like McDonald V had to do with a City denying the ability of a citizen to have a handgun in their home. What came out of both was that they did have that right. But the City had the right to require registration and licensing of both the weapon and the person. Reading anything else from those two are right up there with claiming that they also ruled that Space Aliens are kept in a deep basement in Cleveland.

You don't know what you are talking about...

Heller....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------


Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

And as to the Dangerous and Unusual portion....from Miller......Justice Alito Addresses that in Caetano v. Massachusetts as he confirms that Heller protects these weapons....

....these rifles are protected and those bans are unConstitutional...

Caetano....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf

Opinion of the Court[edit]

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8] and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6]

The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]

First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10]

Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconstant with Heller.[11]


Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Heller rejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]

-----

Friedman v Highland Park...Scalia wrote this after Heller.....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.
Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.
Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

There we no real antigunners back then. There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other. Don't let a little history and facts get in your way. Now move on to the next stupid subject.

Not talking about back then dumbass but yes since you mentioned it there were antigunners called democrats that tried to keep blacks from being armed. And anything you said after that was irrelevant.

Conversing with you reminds me of an old intro to a TV show from the 50s. You wish to control reality to suit yourself

 

[Daryl Hunt]

How about the Air Gun. Or the Brown Bess. Or the Bowie Knife. These three you would find in the homes of many. In fact, there was a law that you had to have X amount of powder and X number of projectiles in your home at any given time. Could this be gun regulation in reverse?

I don't see the relevance since AR15s are the very weapon that has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time both mentioned by Miller and Heller.

Especially if they are weapons or war.

That's what anti-gunners call them weapons of war which Miller said those are the only firearms protected by the second amendment.

There we no real antigunners back then. There was a whole bunch of antimobster people that got tired of being slaughtered by the overspray when the Mobs would try and kill each other. Don't let a little history and facts get in your way. Now move on to the next stupid subject.

Not talking about back then dumbass but yes since you mentioned it there were antigunners called democrats that tried to keep blacks from being armed. And anything you said after that was irrelevant.

Then you gunnuters hammer away hoping to drown out any people that "Might" disagree with you even the slightest amount. Reminds of the updated version