If obama wins in November look for a gun ban

[bigrebnc1775]

Thanks for the heads up.................


Just ordered some more kits. For display purposes only

Here's your sign if she was your next door neighbor.

I would never put up that type of sign.


I even leave windows open.

No worries I will ensure the perp gets both feet in, before he needs medical assistance.

Dead people don't need medical assistants

 

[JakeStarkey]

The assault weapons ban is unconstitutional

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

No, its' not and Reagan was for it.

How can you have a militia type weapon without having an assault weapon?

Hint: you don't get to decide what a "militia type weapon" is under the law. You have no case. Fail.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No, its' not and Reagan was for it.

How can you have a militia type weapon without having an assault weapon?

Hint: you don't get to decide what a "militia type weapon" is under the law. You have no case. Fail.

Hint the supreme court did decide what type of weapons were suitable for militia use.
So how can use have a suitable militia weapon without having an assault weapon?

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have been the SCOTUS decision before. It does not permit you to own what you call "a suitable militia weapon."

You get a shoulder arm, a hand weapon, and in some cases, automatic weapons. Nothing more sonny without special federal permits.

This has been decided, and you simply hate that you can't float a guided missile frigate in your bath tub.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have been the SCOTUS decision before. It does not permit you to own what you call "a suitable militia weapon."

You get a shoulder arm, a hand weapon, and in some cases, automatic weapons. Nothing more sonny without special federal permits.

This has been decided, and you simply hate that you can't float a guided missile frigate in your bath tub.

One more time for the peanut gallery an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[JakeStarkey]

We have been the SCOTUS decision before. It does not permit you to own what you call "a suitable militia weapon."

You get a shoulder arm, a hand weapon, and in some cases, automatic weapons. Nothing more sonny without special federal permits.

This has been decided, and you simply hate that you can't float a guided missile frigate in your bath tub.

One more time for the peanut gallery an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Miller does not allow you to possess military weapons, except under special federal permit. The vast majority of military weapons are not considered as any sort of militia weapons.

Four militia men in our community were in possession and selling weapons prohibited to the public. I was consulted in forwarding the sting operation that resulted in the militia nuts' arrests, trials, and prison sentences. They still sit there today. The same will happen to you if you break the law.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

We have been the SCOTUS decision before. It does not permit you to own what you call "a suitable militia weapon."

You get a shoulder arm, a hand weapon, and in some cases, automatic weapons. Nothing more sonny without special federal permits.

This has been decided, and you simply hate that you can't float a guided missile frigate in your bath tub.

One more time for the peanut gallery an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939).
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

Miller does not allow you to possess military weapons, except under special federal permit. The vast majority of military weapons are not considered as any sort of militia weapons.

Four militia men in our community were in possession and selling weapons prohibited to the public. I was consulted in forwarding the sting operation that resulted in the militia nuts' arrests, trials, and prison sentences. They still sit there today. The same will happen to you if you break the law.

What does this say?


Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is the arguments of some of the lawyers. Not the finding in law by SCOTUS.

End of story.

You will go to prison if you act like the fools I described, bigrebnc.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That is the arguments of some of the lawyers. Not the finding in law by SCOTUS.

End of story.

You will go to prison if you act like the fools I described, bigrebnc.

Another failed post of jokey
It was the ruling of the supreme court you moron. Not the argument of a lawyer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb does not understand Miller at all. Miller did nothing that bigreb believes that it did. The below may help.
The U.S. v Miller, revisited

Key Points

♦ Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Arm of 1934 (NFA ’34)
♦ the defendants argued that NFA ’34 violated the Second Amendment
♦ the District Court: ~

◊ held that NFA ’34 was unconstitutional
◊ did not ask the defendants to justify their views in detail
◊ record thus contained no explanation of the defendants’ views

♦ the government asked the Supreme Court to review the District Court decision
♦ the Supreme Court:

◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)

♦ a brief for Miller and Layton might have argued that:

◊ short-barreled and sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, having been usedby both sides in the Civil War
◊ shotguns were widely used by U.S. forces in World War I
◊ the Supreme Court in 1856 implicitly reaffirmed the law-abiding person’s civil right to be armed, when it declared that the government, in the form of a sheriff, had no duty to protect the average person

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb does not understand Miller at all. Miller did nothing that bigreb believes that it did. The below may help.
The U.S. v Miller, revisited

Key Points

♦ Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Arm of 1934 (NFA ’34)
♦ the defendants argued that NFA ’34 violated the Second Amendment
♦ the District Court: ~

◊ held that NFA ’34 was unconstitutional
◊ did not ask the defendants to justify their views in detail
◊ record thus contained no explanation of the defendants’ views

♦ the government asked the Supreme Court to review the District Court decision
♦ the Supreme Court:

◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)

♦ a brief for Miller and Layton might have argued that:

◊ short-barreled and sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, having been usedby both sides in the Civil War
◊ shotguns were widely used by U.S. forces in World War I
◊ the Supreme Court in 1856 implicitly reaffirmed the law-abiding person’s civil right to be armed, when it declared that the government, in the form of a sheriff, had no duty to protect the average person

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

The argument was about sawed off shotguns so try again

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here dumb ass the link to the court ruling one more time
U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigreb does not understand Miller at all. Miller did nothing that bigreb believes that it did. The below may help.
The U.S. v Miller, revisited

Key Points

♦ Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Arm of 1934 (NFA ’34)
♦ the defendants argued that NFA ’34 violated the Second Amendment
♦ the District Court: ~

◊ held that NFA ’34 was unconstitutional
◊ did not ask the defendants to justify their views in detail
◊ record thus contained no explanation of the defendants’ views

♦ the government asked the Supreme Court to review the District Court decision
♦ the Supreme Court:

◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)

♦ a brief for Miller and Layton might have argued that:

◊ short-barreled and sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, having been usedby both sides in the Civil War
◊ shotguns were widely used by U.S. forces in World War I
◊ the Supreme Court in 1856 implicitly reaffirmed the law-abiding person’s civil right to be armed, when it declared that the government, in the form of a sheriff, had no duty to protect the average person

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

The argument was about sawed off shotguns so try again

Son, that is a review of the case you cited. It disagrees with you. It does not give you grounds to argue that as a "millitia" nut you get to own anti-aircraft artillery or weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

bigreb does not understand Miller at all. Miller did nothing that bigreb believes that it did. The below may help.
The U.S. v Miller, revisited

Key Points

♦ Jack Miller and Frank Layton were indicted for taking an unregistered short-barreled shotgun across state lines, allegedly in violation of the National Firearms Arm of 1934 (NFA ’34)
♦ the defendants argued that NFA ’34 violated the Second Amendment
♦ the District Court: ~

◊ held that NFA ’34 was unconstitutional
◊ did not ask the defendants to justify their views in detail
◊ record thus contained no explanation of the defendants’ views

♦ the government asked the Supreme Court to review the District Court decision
♦ the Supreme Court:

◊ never read or heard the defendants’ views, because they were not represented in any form
◊ heard only one side of the matter, the government’s side
◊ did not accept most of the government’s arguments
◊ based its conclusion on a small part of the government’s argument
◊ declared that a short-barreled shotgun was not a "militia" or "military-type" firearm, at the time the Second Amendment was written (late 1700s)

♦ a brief for Miller and Layton might have argued that:

◊ short-barreled and sawed-off shotguns were military weapons, having been usedby both sides in the Civil War
◊ shotguns were widely used by U.S. forces in World War I
◊ the Supreme Court in 1856 implicitly reaffirmed the law-abiding person’s civil right to be armed, when it declared that the government, in the form of a sheriff, had no duty to protect the average person

The U.S. v Miller, revisited

The argument was about sawed off shotguns so try again

Son, that is a review of the case you cited. It disagrees with you. It does not give you grounds to argue that as a "millitia" nut you get to own anti-aircraft artillery or weapons.

No it doesn't drama queen.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

 

[JakeStarkey]

The argument was about sawed off shotguns so try again

Son, that is a review of the case you cited. It disagrees with you. It does not give you grounds to argue that as a "millitia" nut you get to own anti-aircraft artillery or weapons.

No it doesn't drama queen.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Miller clearly does not give militia the right to have military weapons of this era.

Show us exactly where it says that. Every time you post a failing comment, I am going to repost, "Show us exactly where it says that."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Son, that is a review of the case you cited. It disagrees with you. It does not give you grounds to argue that as a "millitia" nut you get to own anti-aircraft artillery or weapons.

No it doesn't drama queen.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Miller clearly does not give militia the right to have military weapons of this era.

Show us exactly where it says that. Every time you post a failing comment, I am going to repost, "Show us exactly where it says that."

Where does it say that jokey?
What does this say?

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."
And I have posted the link.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show us the findings that specifically agree with your silly ass statements. "Show us exactly where it says that."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1930 - 1939 Guns

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Show us the findings that specifically agree with your silly ass statements. "Show us exactly where it says that."

I did you are such a moron with another failed post.

 

[JakeStarkey]

bigrebnc has fail on this. He cannot show us specifically in his evidence, Miller, that he can have military type weapons because he cannot demonstrate that he is militia.

You have to post exactly where you are given this power: you can't and you FAIL.