Keep and Bear Arms
Home Members Login/Join About Us News/Editorials Archives Take Action Your Voice Web Services Free Email
You are 1 of 998 active visitors Saturday, July 13, 2024
Main Email List:

State Email Lists:
Click Here
Join/Renew Online
Join/Renew by Mail
Make a Donation
Magazine Subscriptions
KABA Memorial Fund
Advertise Here
Use KABA Free Email




Keep and Bear Arms - Vote In Our Polls
Do you oppose Biden's anti-gun executive orders?

Current results
Earlier poll results
4747 people voted



» U.S. Gun Laws
» AmeriPAC
» NoInternetTax
» Gun Show On The Net
» 2nd Amendment Show
» SEMPER FIrearms
» Colt Collectors Assoc.
» Personal Defense Solutions



Keep and Bear Arms

NOTE! This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or any other living person besides the one who posted them. Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion Policy, but there's a bad apple in every bunch, and we have no control over bigots and other small-minded people.  Thank you.

The Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:

Does the Second Amendment really protect assault weapons? Four courts have said no.
Submitted by: Mark A. Taff

There are 5 comments on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments

Almost exactly a year ago, a federal appeals court considered whether a Maryland law banning assault weapons was unconstitutional.

The law was passed in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Elementary massacre, which left 20 first-graders and six adults dead after a man bearing an AR-15 style weapon stormed the Connecticut school.

Comment by: dasing (2/22/2018)
JUST because the "courts" say no, does NOT mean the laws are constitutional !

Comment by: jac (2/22/2018)
Opinions from liberal judges that have substituted their prejudices for the constitution that they swore to uphold.

It does not make these decisions constitutionally correct.

Comment by: MarkHamTownsend (2/22/2018)
In the Heller" decision, SCOTUS said something about protecting guns in common use. I'm not that happy with that standard but, THERE ARE 8 MILLION AR RIFLES OUT THERE.
Some courts seem to not get what "shall not be infringed" means....and prove it by infringing on the 2A right!


Comment by: PHORTO (2/22/2018)
In 1939, the SCOTUS ruled in U.S. v. Miller that the sawed-off shotgun at issue wasn't within the ambit of 2A protection because there was no evidence that it was "in common use", that it had "some reasonable relationship to . . . the efficiency of a well regulated militia", that it was "any part of the ordinary military equipment" or that it "could contribute to the common defense". Modern sporting rifles (read, AR-15s and the like) meet every requirement that the Court ruled as necessary for the right to apply.

This question has already been answered, but no lower court respects that finding.

Comment by: MarkHamTownsend (2/22/2018)
the problem with the Miller case is the solicitor general pulled a fast one on the law. By always refering to the particulate shotgun that was in evidence and claiming no one could produce any evidence IT was ever used in a war, he cleverly allowed the actual fact (well known at the time) that shotguns like it had been very useful in WW1, being refered to as "trench brooms."
BTW, the Miller case was read in by the solicitor general. No defendants present, no defense lawyer present....the firm representing Miller was doing it pro Bono and couldn't afford to continue, so had bowed out.
Great case...almost a true drumhead, no?

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)]

COPYRIGHT POLICY: The posting of copyrighted articles and other content, in whole or in part, is not allowed here. We have made an effort to educate our users about this policy and we are extremely serious about this. Users who are caught violating this rule will be warned and/or banned.
If you are the owner of content that you believe has been posted on this site without your permission, please contact our webmaster by following this link. Please include with your message: (1) the particulars of the infringement, including a description of the content, (2) a link to that content here and (3) information concerning where the content in question was originally posted/published. We will address your complaint as quickly as possible. Thank you.

NOTICE:  The information contained in this site is not to be considered as legal advice. In no way are Keep And Bear Arms .com or any of its agents responsible for the actions of our members or site visitors. Also, because this web site is a Free Speech Zone, opinions, ideas, beliefs, suggestions, practices and concepts throughout this site may or may not represent those of Keep And Bear Arms .com. All rights reserved. Articles that are original to this site may be redistributed provided they are left intact and a link to is given. Click here for Contact Information for representatives of is the leading provider of Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and digital certificate solutions used by enterprises, Web sites, and consumers to conduct secure communications and transactions over the Internet and private networks., Inc. © 1999-2024, All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy