idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
That's fine, but that's a different discussion.
That wasn't the conclusion of the paper that you based your original post on, that's all I'm saying...America-er.
The words "to bear arms" is a military term
- Thread starter bigrebnc1775
- Start date
That's fine, but that's a different discussion.
That wasn't the conclusion of the paper that you based your original post on, that's all I'm saying...America-er.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
idb
Gold Member
- Dec 26, 2010
- 14,986
- 2,590
- 265
Did not
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
So......you're equating muskets and M-16's?
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #326
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
Explain to me why anyone outside of the military or the police would need to have more than 10 rounds available for shooting before reloading?
That's right.........you can't.
That's right.........you can't.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #329
Why does the regular military and police need them?
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #330
Does not.
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
Just ignore Little Racist Bigot in NC. He's spent too much time slopping in the sewers.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #332
Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980). Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added)
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.
U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). This case involved the making of a false statement by a convicted felon in connection with the purchase of a firearm. After citing Miller for the propositions that "the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and that the "Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,'" the court held that there was "no evidence that the prohibition of 922(a)(6) obstructs the maintenance of a well-regulated militia." Thus, the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms and recognized that Miller required the introduction of evidence which showed a militia use for the firearm involved.
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.
U.S. v. Cody, 460 F.2d 34 (8th Cir. 1972). This case involved the making of a false statement by a convicted felon in connection with the purchase of a firearm. After citing Miller for the propositions that "the Second Amendment is not an absolute bar to congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms" and that the "Second Amendment's guarantee extends only to use or possession which 'has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,'" the court held that there was "no evidence that the prohibition of 922(a)(6) obstructs the maintenance of a well-regulated militia." Thus, the court acknowledged that the Second Amendment would be a bar to some congressional regulation of the use or possession of firearms and recognized that Miller required the introduction of evidence which showed a militia use for the firearm involved.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #333
I hate to keep busting your chops but I doubt you were in the service. No one who has been in the military would call a magazine a clip.
JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,527
- 2,165
- Banned
- #334
Miller supersedes any and all other rulings. If folks could have military weapons platforms, the mainstream press and right talk radio would be blasting it off the airways. bigrebnc, once again you blew up your OP with evidences that proves you wrong.
You are the only one who does that regularly on this Board.
You are the only one who does that regularly on this Board.
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
My DD Form 2N(Blue) retiree ID card and my pension would disagree with you.
Like I said, why do you need more than 10 rounds before reloading, unless you're killing people or a really crappy shot?
Little Racist Bigot in NC, you are clearly stupid. Your plumber's crack must have reached up into your brain ya fat fucktard.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #336
It's just words on the internet to me. Blah blah blah. You gave yourself away when you argued that a clip was the same thing as a magazine.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #337
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.
ABikerSailor
Diamond Member
Does your opinion of me matter Little Racist Bigot in NC?
I think not. But, if you want, you can call Amarillo MEPS and ask who was in charge there from 1999 until 2002.
They'll tell you it was me.
Either way.......your opinion of me means squat. My world will continue to spin, with or without your approval.
I think not. But, if you want, you can call Amarillo MEPS and ask who was in charge there from 1999 until 2002.
They'll tell you it was me.
Either way.......your opinion of me means squat. My world will continue to spin, with or without your approval.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #339
It's not my opinion sea bitch it's a fact. Any military person that has done the things you say you have done would know the difference between a clip and a magazine. Either you are lying about what you did or you never were in the navy.
bigrebnc1775
][][][% NC Sheepdog
- Thread starter
- #340
Back to the topic. I have proven that only military grade weapons are protected by the second amendment. The next attempt to ban any "assault weapons" I'm suing. I am going to look into how I can have the National Firearms Act OVER TURNED.
New Topics
-
-
-
Black chicago mayor admits he prefers hiring black people
- Started by StatesRightsForever
- Replies: 2
-
-
African Coaltan, Gold, Platinum, minerals are going to be fought over in future war.!!?$$
- Started by 52ndStreet
- Replies: 1
