If obama wins in November look for a gun ban

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I have posted the court ruling so what else do you want in your failure?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Justice McReynolds

74 N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 3:48
whatever it holds, Miller does not hold that Congress can regulate
firearms directly.
The rejection of Miller’s Tenth Amendment claim highlights
the implausibility of his Second Amendment claim. Miller could not
just argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess and use NFA firearms. He had to claim it prohibits taxation of
NFA firearms. Unsurprisingly, McReynolds found this claim unconvincing. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to keep and bear arms, it hardly prohibits Congress
from taxing particular weapons.
McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
195
In other words, the
Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,
196
and the
Second Amendment ensures it is armed.
Accordingly, McReynolds devoted most of Miller to analyzing the composition of the militia and the duties of militia service.
After consulting “the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators,” he concluded the militia consists of “all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
197
Essentially, everyone subject to conscription.
198
“And further, that
ordinarily 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.”
199

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=brian_frye

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice McReynolds

74 N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 3:48
whatever it holds, Miller does not hold that Congress can regulate
firearms directly.
The rejection of Miller’s Tenth Amendment claim highlights
the implausibility of his Second Amendment claim. Miller could not
just argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess and use NFA firearms. He had to claim it prohibits taxation of
NFA firearms. Unsurprisingly, McReynolds found this claim unconvincing. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to keep and bear arms, it hardly prohibits Congress
from taxing particular weapons.
McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
195
In other words, the
Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,
196
and the
Second Amendment ensures it is armed.
Accordingly, McReynolds devoted most of Miller to analyzing the composition of the militia and the duties of militia service.
After consulting “the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators,” he concluded the militia consists of “all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
197
Essentially, everyone subject to conscription.
198
“And further, that
ordinarily 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.”
199

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=brian_frye

You don't read carefully, do you. Congress regulates the militia then and now. Congress has delegated that to the national guards. Military style type weapons are kept in their weapons and arms bunkers and lockers. You do not get to own your very ownest howitzer, son.

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

 

[IndependntLogic]

ROFL!!!!
This is exactly what was posted in 2008! I still have my weapon and no one has come asking about it for three years!
Not ONE piece of legislation has been introduced.
Not ONE piece of legislation has even been discussed.
Nothing.
But the Far Righties flock to the stores and buy the guns and bullets like there's no tomorrow.

 

[francoHFW]

To review: Total Pubcrappe for the NRA dupes. No evidence AT ALL, same as last election. All ANYBODY of import wants to do is close loopholes so felons and mental cases can't get them. Because this is nuts.

 

[earlycuyler]

Justice McReynolds

74 N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 3:48
whatever it holds, Miller does not hold that Congress can regulate
firearms directly.
The rejection of Miller’s Tenth Amendment claim highlights
the implausibility of his Second Amendment claim. Miller could not
just argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess and use NFA firearms. He had to claim it prohibits taxation of
NFA firearms. Unsurprisingly, McReynolds found this claim unconvincing. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to keep and bear arms, it hardly prohibits Congress
from taxing particular weapons.
McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
195
In other words, the
Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,
196
and the
Second Amendment ensures it is armed.
Accordingly, McReynolds devoted most of Miller to analyzing the composition of the militia and the duties of militia service.
After consulting “the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators,” he concluded the militia consists of “all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
197
Essentially, everyone subject to conscription.
198
“And further, that
ordinarily 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.”
199

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=brian_frye

You don't read carefully, do you. Congress regulates the militia then and now. Congress has delegated that to the national guards. Military style type weapons are kept in their weapons and arms bunkers and lockers. You do not get to own your very ownest howitzer, son.

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

I want a .50 cal door gun and one of those old time recoilless rifle things in the bed of my truck like those Somali guys got.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Justice McReynolds

74 N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 3:48
whatever it holds, Miller does not hold that Congress can regulate
firearms directly.
The rejection of Miller’s Tenth Amendment claim highlights
the implausibility of his Second Amendment claim. Miller could not
just argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess and use NFA firearms. He had to claim it prohibits taxation of
NFA firearms. Unsurprisingly, McReynolds found this claim unconvincing. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to keep and bear arms, it hardly prohibits Congress
from taxing particular weapons.
McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
195
In other words, the
Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,
196
and the
Second Amendment ensures it is armed.
Accordingly, McReynolds devoted most of Miller to analyzing the composition of the militia and the duties of militia service.
After consulting “the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators,” he concluded the militia consists of “all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
197
Essentially, everyone subject to conscription.
198
“And further, that
ordinarily 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.”
199

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=brian_frye

You don't read carefully, do you. Congress regulates the militia then and now. Congress has delegated that to the national guards. Military style type weapons are kept in their weapons and arms bunkers and lockers. You do not get to own your very ownest howitzer, son.

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

That is not the militia nor is it the unorganized militia.
(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.

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
According to UNITED STATES v. MILLER you must have militia grade weapons to have a militia.

A big old failure on your part.
But that mockery of trayvon avatar is just how you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Justice McReynolds

74 N.Y.U. Journal of Law & Liberty [Vol. 3:48
whatever it holds, Miller does not hold that Congress can regulate
firearms directly.
The rejection of Miller’s Tenth Amendment claim highlights
the implausibility of his Second Amendment claim. Miller could not
just argue that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to possess and use NFA firearms. He had to claim it prohibits taxation of
NFA firearms. Unsurprisingly, McReynolds found this claim unconvincing. Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees an
individual right to keep and bear arms, it hardly prohibits Congress
from taxing particular weapons.
McReynolds assumed the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear arms in order to ensure an effective militia exists. “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and
render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and
guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
195
In other words, the
Militia Clause empowers Congress to regulate the militia,
196
and the
Second Amendment ensures it is armed.
Accordingly, McReynolds devoted most of Miller to analyzing the composition of the militia and the duties of militia service.
After consulting “the debates in the Convention, the history and
legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved
commentators,” he concluded the militia consists of “all males
physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”
197
Essentially, everyone subject to conscription.
198
“And further, that
ordinarily 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.”
199

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=brian_frye

You don't read carefully, do you. Congress regulates the militia then and now. Congress has delegated that to the national guards. Military style type weapons are kept in their weapons and arms bunkers and lockers. You do not get to own your very ownest howitzer, son.

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

That is not the militia nor is it the unorganized militia.
(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.

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
According to UNITED STATES v. MILLER you must have militia grade weapons to have a militia.

A big old failure on your part.
But that mockery of trayvon avatar is just how you are.

Which does not apply to your point.

ps: note the attempt to personalize his failure. The hoody on the kitty is a rejection of bigrebnc and his bully attitudes.

Fail.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

And Heller reaffirmed Miller in that the individual right to own a handgun pertains to ‘firearms in common use.’ The Heller Court went on to admonish lower courts to not infer the ruling as a prohibition of reasonable regulations, such as with actual assault/military-type weapons.

The idiocy of the AWB, therefore, was the ignorant context of its passage, as assault weapons were already banned from the general public as they are today:

ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - National Firearms Act (NFA) - Firearms

The weapons banned in the ‘AWB’ were not ‘assault weapons,’ the semi-automatic AR-type clones and AK/M-type clones were no more dangerous than other semi-automatic weapons not banned, such as the Ruger Mini 14/30.

That a semi-automatic rifle had a pistol grip, detachable magazine, or ‘barrel shroud’ in no way rendered it more destructive.

AR-type clones and AK/M-type clones are clearly firearms in common use, are not assault weapons, and any measure passed to ban such weapons would be struck down as un-Constitutional accordingly.

 

[Flopper]

Fast and the furious was not a new race team of the white house.

AND
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.

Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban - ABC News

The assault weapons ban has been backed by every president since Reagan and for good reason. When the second amendment was written, flintlocks were the weapon of the day. If you were good, you might be able get off 3 shots and 1 kill in a minute. With an assault rife you can fire 500 to 1000 rounds a minute, enough to wipe out an entire class of kids in seconds. I seriously doubt the founding fathers considered this when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

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

As you well know, the US Supreme Court has never ruled that the federal band on assault weapons is unconstitutional.

 

[Flopper]

Democrats and Republicans are well aware that the public overwhelming supports the assault weapons ban. It would be a mistake for either party to ignore this with the election only months away.

A January 2011 poll of registered voters found that 81% of respondents favor the tracking of bulk purchases of assault rifles; guns that recently have become the weapon of choice of Mexican drug cartels.

A poll conducted shortly after the 2008 presidential election found that 65% of Americans, including 60% of gun owners, favor banning military style assault weapons.

A 2006 poll found that 82% of Americans support restrictions on the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons.

In 2004, a poll of likely presidential election voters found that 77% of overall respondents, and 66% of gun owning respondents, supported renewal of the now-expired federal assault weapon ban.

Sixty-seven percent of Field & Stream readers do not consider assault weapons to be legitimate sporting guns.

LCAV - Polling

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The assault weapons ban has been backed by every president since Reagan and for good reason. When the second amendment was written, flintlocks were the weapon of the day. If you were good, you might be able get off 3 shots and 1 kill in a minute. With an assault rife you can fire 500 to 1000 rounds a minute, enough to wipe out an entire class of kids in seconds. I seriously doubt the founding fathers considered this when they wrote the 2nd amendment.

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

As you well know, the US Supreme Court has never ruled that the federal band on assault weapons is unconstitutional.

Because it never was asked of them in court. It is not the duty of the court to speak unless asked.

I will sue obama if he does it and take it all the way to the supreme court.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't read carefully, do you. Congress regulates the militia then and now. Congress has delegated that to the national guards. Military style type weapons are kept in their weapons and arms bunkers and lockers. You do not get to own your very ownest howitzer, son.

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

That is not the militia nor is it the unorganized militia.
(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.

10 U.S.C. § 311 : US Code - Section 311: Militia: composition and classes
According to UNITED STATES v. MILLER you must have militia grade weapons to have a militia.

A big old failure on your part.
But that mockery of trayvon avatar is just how you are.

Which does not apply to your point.

ps: note the attempt to personalize his failure. The hoody on the kitty is a rejection of bigrebnc and his bully attitudes.

Fail.

Just because you say it does not make it so.
I am a member of the unorganized militia
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have to read Miller and all in context, and you always have refused to do that.

Fail, nothing new.

And Heller reaffirmed Miller in that the individual right to own a handgun pertains to ‘firearms in common use.’ The Heller Court went on to admonish lower courts to not infer the ruling as a prohibition of reasonable regulations, such as with actual assault/military-type weapons.

The idiocy of the AWB, therefore, was the ignorant context of its passage, as assault weapons were already banned from the general public as they are today:

ATF Online - Firearms - Frequently Asked Questions - National Firearms Act (NFA) - Firearms

The weapons banned in the ‘AWB’ were not ‘assault weapons,’ the semi-automatic AR-type clones and AK/M-type clones were no more dangerous than other semi-automatic weapons not banned, such as the Ruger Mini 14/30.

That a semi-automatic rifle had a pistol grip, detachable magazine, or ‘barrel shroud’ in no way rendered it more destructive.

AR-type clones and AK/M-type clones are clearly firearms in common use, are not assault weapons, and any measure passed to ban such weapons would be struck down as un-Constitutional accordingly.

Miller says

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."

Rifles such as would be found on an assault weapons ban are militia grade weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Democrats and Republicans are well aware that the public overwhelming supports the assault weapons ban. It would be a mistake for either party to ignore this with the election only months away.

A January 2011 poll of registered voters found that 81% of respondents favor the tracking of bulk purchases of assault rifles; guns that recently have become the weapon of choice of Mexican drug cartels.

A poll conducted shortly after the 2008 presidential election found that 65% of Americans, including 60% of gun owners, favor banning military style assault weapons.

A 2006 poll found that 82% of Americans support restrictions on the sale of semi-automatic assault weapons.

In 2004, a poll of likely presidential election voters found that 77% of overall respondents, and 66% of gun owning respondents, supported renewal of the now-expired federal assault weapon ban.

Sixty-seven percent of Field & Stream readers do not consider assault weapons to be legitimate sporting guns.

LCAV - Polling

What a bullshit poll. Where did they do this poll at Berkeley?

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have the right to sue, yes.

Nothing in the law or the ruling of Miller recognizes you as having the rights that are given to the National Guard. You have trouble understand that it is settled that the government regulates the militia. You do not comprehend Miller’s limitations on the militia.

No one disputes your right to have a rifle or a shotgun.

The poll is the poll. Most people believe that a ban on assault weapons is appropriate.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You have the right to sue, yes.

Nothing in the law or the ruling of Miller recognizes you as having the rights that are given to the National Guard. You have trouble understand that it is settled that the government regulates the militia. You do not comprehend Miller’s limitations on the militia.

No one disputes your right to have a rifle or a shotgun.

The poll is the poll. Most people believe that a ban on assault weapons is appropriate.

joke the unorganized militia is not part of the government.

So I say you failed again.

The poll is the poll. Most people believe that a ban on assault weapons is appropriate.

A poll is not a poll. I could take the same question too a gun show and what do you think the out come would be?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government regulates the militia. The "unregulated" militia is not superior to the government. You disagree with a reputable poll. OK.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The government regulates the militia. The "unregulated" militia is not superior to the government. You disagree with a reputable poll. OK.

Not the unorganized.

(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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The government regulates the militia, bigreb, organized or unorganized, subject to federal statute.

You have the right to say, "Yes, sir", if and when the feds call you up.