Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Justices declared that military-style weapons clearly WERE protected by the 2nd. Today that would include the M-16 and its civilian version the AR-15; and all the variants of the AK-47 assault rifle (an "assault rifle" is actually a gun that can fire as a machine gun).
The wording of the ruling was, “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.”
If you want to argue what you're arguing, you could say that hunting rifles could indeed be banned or restricted because they aren't used by the military. Hunting rifles aren't necessary for, "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
What if the military ceased using variants of the AK-47? What if the military does not use Walther PPK's? Would you then agree it would be constitutional to restrict those?
The military no longer uses muskets (that I'm aware of). Can we restrict those?
The problem with your argument is that we would have to go to the Supreme Court, like, every few years at least, with a huge list of guns and types of guns the military does and does not use, in order to determine which ones are necessary for "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." I doubt that's what the Supreme Court really had in mind. I'm sure at one time the military *did* use, 'shotguns having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length.' It seems more likely to me the Supreme Court was simply saying it is not necessary to make ownership of every single kind of gun unrestricted, because every single kind of gun is not necessary for 'the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.'
The problem with your argument is that we would have to go to the Supreme Court, like, every few years at least, with a huge list of guns and types of guns the military does and does not use, in order to determine which ones are necessary for "preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
That's the Supreme Court Justices' argument. I don't agree with it, of course, but it's what they said.
Quote:
I doubt that's what the Supreme Court really had in mind.
They clearly said that guns without current and common use by the military were not protected by the 2nd... with all that that implies. So I guess that it doesn't really matter what you doubt, does it?
Thanks for using US v Miller as a buttress for your arguments. I'll ask again, when can we expect you to start petitioning the government to repeal all those laws restricting guns similar to those recently used in the military, such as the AR-15, M16, AK-47, Ma Deuce etc.? Since such laws clearly violate the ruling made by the Supremes in 1939 in US v. Miller.
In infantry to infantry engagements, bullets fired was the determining factor. The entire small arms and squad tactics development during and after the war is predicated on this very notion. Yes, in major battles artillery caused the most casualties, but this fact has no practical relation to the topic at hand and was thus not worth mentioning.
No such thing as "Infantry to Infantry" I was an infantry officer for a decade (commanding a company when I left). We carried mortars, ATGMs, grenades, mines and Comms equipment that had big guns and bombs at the other end of it. Even when I was in Serbian rear areas during the Bosnian humanitarian crisis in a platoon we had mortars, ATGMs, grenades and comms (but no identifying insignia).
You're talking UO predominantly and I already said that was an exception. That said barring body armor the best weapons there would be a combat shotgun and sniper support.
The relevance is in credibility. You keep stating as hard facts things that show your grasp of the subject is tenuous at best.
Of course, in US v. Miller the National Firearms Act of 1934 was found completely unconstitutional, a flat violation of the 2nd amendment, when it was tried in the U.S. District Court. The judge took about 20 minutes to find that the NFA was designed to infringe the right of people like Miller to own his short-barreled shotgun, not just a revenue-raising tax.
When US v. Miller got to the Supreme Court, it got by on a technicality: The Pro Bono lawyer was unable to find his client, so didn't prepare any case, and nobody showed up for the defense. One side of the courtroom was completely empty.
So the anti-gun government lawyers for the prosecution took fast advantage of this windfall, and read a number of lies into the record (2nd Am only protected military-style weapons, the short-barreled shotgun of the defendant wasn't military-style, the 2nd only applied to weapons used by a militia etc.). And with nobody there to refute them, the Justices rubber-stamped them into an Opinion reversing the District court. US v. Miller, 1939.
The Opinion is full of lawyers' weasel-words like "...certainly it is not within judicial notice that...", "we cannot say that....", etc. meaning that since nobody in this courtroom during the hearing of this case pointed out how wrong these statements are, we must pretend they are correct despite what the 2nd Am obviously says."
The defendant was later found dead in a stream bed with four bullets in his chest.
But I'm happy to hear a few gun-rights-haters finally announcing they support the conclusions of the US v. Miller Opinion. The Justices declared that military-style weapons clearly WERE protected by the 2nd. Today that would include the M-16 and its civilian version the AR-15; and all the variants of the AK-47 assault rifle (an "assault rifle" is actually a gun that can fire as a machine gun).
So, gun-rights-haters, when do you plan to start calling your congressthings and insisting that they repeal all the laws restricting such guns?
The privilege of citizen 21 years of age who are non-felons and mentally stable, may keep but never bear, the small arms the government decides are acceptable to the citizens use for sporting only. This may be altered when emotions run high, or the government is threatened.
They clearly said that guns without current and common use by the military were not protected by the 2nd... with all that that implies.
I'm not really sure yours is the correct interpretation, for the simple reason that there are currently many kinds of arms (machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.) that are currently used by the military, but whose ownership among the civilian population is restricted or even banned. Given that the Miller case is now almost 70 years old, one would think that if anyone thought those restrictions were unconstitutional they would have been challenged by now, and that if any courts thought the Miller ruling was supposed to be interpreted the way you say it is, then those restrictions would have been overturned. But, as I said, it's been almost 70 years since Miller, and nobody has overturned restrictions on ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers and bazookas.
Quote:
Thanks for using US v Miller as a buttress for your arguments. I'll ask again, when can we expect you to start petitioning the government to repeal all those laws restricting guns similar to those recently used in the military, such as the AR-15, M16, AK-47, Ma Deuce etc.? Since such laws clearly violate the ruling made by the Supremes in 1939 in US v. Miller.
See reply above.
TBH, I am less interested in restricting types of guns one can own, as I'm interested in creating a system that creates at least some sort of minimal filter as to who can own a gun ... which is why I was talking about creating some sort of licensing system similar to that used for automobiles.
TBH, I am less interested in restricting types of guns one can own, as I'm interested in creating a system that creates at least some sort of minimal filter as to who can own a gun ... which is why I was talking about creating some sort of licensing system similar to that used for automobiles.
OK, let's work with this. Describe the licensing system. Break it down, since you're making it sound so simple, given how simple getting a driver's license is.
I'll start - the state of Ohio has a rule that if you have your CCW, as long as it is current (just like a driver's license), you don't need to do background checks when purchasing a weapon, because the state/county already did three of them when you got your CCW. For me to purchase a firearm, I need to show my CCW card and money. Done.
What did the CCW take? One 8 hour training class, 20 shots out of my pistol, filling out two forms, a federal (2) and state background checks, and I think $145 total. Renewal is every 5 years.
Now, that is actually more difficult than a driver's license imho, but still wasn't all that tough. So is that what you are talking about?
OK, let's work with this. Describe the licensing system. Break it down, since you're making it sound so simple, given how simple getting a driver's license is.
I'll start - the state of Ohio has a rule that if you have your CCW, as long as it is current (just like a driver's license), you don't need to do background checks when purchasing a weapon, because the state/county already did three of them when you got your CCW. For me to purchase a firearm, I need to show my CCW card and money. Done.
What did the CCW take? One 8 hour training class, 20 shots out of my pistol, filling out two forms, a federal (2) and state background checks, and I think $145 total. Renewal is every 5 years.
Now, that is actually more difficult than a driver's license imho, but still wasn't all that tough. So is that what you are talking about?
I was actually thinking about starting a thread describing what I have in mind, with a poll. Maybe sometime later.
EDIT: And what you described as being required for a CCW in Ohio, sounds similar to what I had in mind to own a gun at all.
Last edited by James Bond 007; 09-14-2018 at 07:58 AM..
I'm not really sure yours is the correct interpretation, for the simple reason that there are currently many kinds of arms (machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.) that are currently used by the military, but whose ownership among the civilian population is restricted or even banned. Given that the Miller case is now almost 70 years old, one would think that if anyone thought those restrictions were unconstitutional they would have been challenged by now, and that if any courts thought the Miller ruling was supposed to be interpreted the way you say it is, then those restrictions would have been overturned. But, as I said, it's been almost 70 years since Miller, and nobody has overturned restrictions on ownership of machine guns, rocket launchers and bazookas.
See reply above.
TBH, I am less interested in restricting types of guns one can own, as I'm interested in creating a system that creates at least some sort of minimal filter as to who can own a gun ... which is why I was talking about creating some sort of licensing system similar to that used for automobiles.
All the people that aren't trusted to keep and bear a gun should be in lock up.
It's utterly stupid to release those people to the general population and wish they wouldn't find a way to harm people.
I'm not really sure yours is the correct interpretation, for the simple reason that there are currently many kinds of arms (machine guns, rocket launchers, bazookas, etc.) that are currently used by the military, but whose ownership among the civilian population is restricted or even banned.
Thank you for pointing out that Congress and various state govts have been systematically violating and abusing, not only the 2nd amendment, but even Supreme Court decisions such as US v. Miller. It has been a hard and bitter lesson for law-abiding citizens, to realize that these big-govt leftists will violate and ignore ANY law that they don't personally agree with. The result is a confused and contradictory hodgepodge of "laws" at various levels that can never be untangled except by massive repeals or court strikedowns. Examples abound even in this thread alone.
(a) The 2nd says flatly that govt can have no say in people's right to own and carry a gun, and even explains why.
(b) But then the Supremes, after a kangaroo-court style showpiece trial where the defendant and his entire legal team weren't present to defend his rights, did a 180 and simply announced that the Fed govt COULD have a say in whether he could own a weapon they (falsely) claimed was not military-style.
(c) And then after that, the Fed and state govts did yet another 180 an started making laws deliberately restricting and even banning weapons that WERE military-style by today's usage, in direct contradiction to what the USSC ruled!
(d) And to top it off, we have liberals and other gun-rights-haters who are trying to tell us in this very thread, that restricting or banning modern military-style weapons from citizens' use is NOT a violation of the 2nd or the US v. Miller case opinion! It's merely a "different but entirely legitimate" interpretation of them!
This strange Alice-in-Wonderland world the leftists have fabricated by twisting the meanings of America's gun laws, from colonial times to the present, was concisely described by one of that child fantasy's leading characters.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master – that's all." - from Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland"
The H-D character even acknowledged the ominously cynical real reason why he was doing it, in his last line quoted above.
Our modern leftists have the same motivation... and the same goal. But unlike the whimsical Humpty Dumpty who only existed in a writer's imagination, today's liberals are bent on imposing the same bizarro world on real, law-aiding people in a real society, by changing the meaning of words to suit whatever agenda they support this week. And then forcing their "new interpretations" on law-abiding folks whether they like it or not.
Quote:
TBH, I am less interested in restricting types of guns one can own, as I'm interested in creating a system that creates at least some sort of minimal filter as to who can own a gun ... which is why I was talking about creating some sort of licensing system similar to that used for automobiles.
The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR were mostly learned men, students of government and history throughout the world. And it was clear to them that giving the government ANY power to decide who could own guns etc. and who couldn't, would present too great a temptation for govt to abuse and use to oppress its own citizens, and would ultimately do far more harm than good to those citizens. And was therefore to be strictly forbidden by the Supreme Law of the Land.
Here in this thread we plainly have at least one dreamy-eyed poster who simply decides to ignore their hard-won wisdom, and blithely give government without thought or review that very power, to decide which of us can carry a gun and which can't. It's no surprise that he uses Humpty Dumpty's tangled "thoughts" to justify his agenda.
You are yet another fool who believes that his - and only his - interpretation of the constitution is the one and only correct one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
