|
|
|
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. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
NC: Most gun laws are constitutional
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
Justice Scalia cited United States vs Miller, a still valid 1939 ruling that allowed laws banning private ownership of ”... weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes ...” Short-barreled shotguns, machine guns and M-16 rifles were specifically mentioned as weapons that could be banned by federal or state laws. The AR-15 is the civilian version (upgradable to fully automatic) of the military grade M-16. Other assault rifles differ from the AR-15 about as much as a Ford differs from a Chevrolet. |
| Comment by:
RichardJCoon
(2/22/2020)
|
| The ar-15 is in common use today. Yes, it is convertible to full-auto, but that is already illegal. The ar-15 is also RARELY used in any type of crime, so what would banning it accomplish? |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/22/2020)
|
U. S. V. Miller may still be on the books, but it is a despicable, twisted decision.
Neither defendant was present in the Supreme Court. No legal representation was --- the lawyers were doing this pro bono, "free," and could no longer afford it.
The case essentially was the solicitor general reading the case into the court record.
About as close to a "drumhead" trial as possible.
|
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(2/22/2020)
|
MarkHamTownsend, your explanation of Miller was accurate, HOWEVER....
...what U.S. v. Miller inadvertently did was identify what kinds of arms are solidly within the ambit of the 2A, IN THE HOLDING.
The Court ruled that arms that don't meet the following criteria are not protected:
1. in common use
2. have some reasonable relationship to militia use
3. could contribute to the common defense
4. are any part of the "ordinary" military equipment
Re: semi-automatic weapons
1. check
2. check
3. check
4. check
The fact that the defendants were not represented is now moot. The precedent stands that semi-autos misnamed as "assault weapons" are 'protected', and banning them is unconstitutional. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(2/22/2020)
|
Phorto;
While I am not debating your interpretation of Miller, the phrase "shall not be infringed" in the 2A should protect any type of firearm, regardless of it being common, or useful to a militia. "Infringe" means 1.) To intrude into, or 2.) To diminish. The NFA of 1934 was a direct infringement, or "intrusion," into the right of the people, despite what Miller or any other court says.
In addition to, "common use" is a stilted term. In 1934 Thompsons, B.A.R.s and other select fire weapons were rare. The NFA as enacted would keep them rare, thus, the law not only creates the condition for its existance but also the justification. Holy circular logic!!!
|
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
