I think the courts have ruled otherwise and the definition for arms is firearms not all arms.
The only one I am aware of off the top of my head is the one out of NY, with Sotomayor as the judge.
I think the courts have ruled otherwise and the definition for arms is firearms not all arms.
divemedic said:You would be wrong. From the link:
As the legislative history of the Act under consideration clearly shows, (p.108)Congress was dealing with problems which threaten the maintenance of public order. There can be no question that an organized society which fails to regulate the importation, manufacture and transfer of the highly sophisticated lethal weapons in existence today does so at its peril. The requirement that no one may possess a submachine gun which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record is a reasonable regulation for the maintenance of public order.
divemedic said:The only one I am aware of off the top of my head is the one out of NY, with Sotomayor as the judge.
Speculation and no evidence to show reliably that the NFA "caused" FA to not be in common use. I don't think a court would buy it. I don't either.
Hkmp5sd said:Speculation and no evidence to show the NFA hasn't "caused" FA to not be in common used. Merely your opinion.
Hkmp5sd said:Most folks have never even considered using a FA for SD in the belief that all FAs were illegal to start with. Thus it is inaccurate to claim that everyone not already a gun fanatic would disapprove of using a FA for SD.
I believe some of the recent interest and purchase of Ar-15s was caused in part by the '94 AWB.
Can you cite any controlling court case that says the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear any and all types of arms such as artillery or rocket launchers?
divemedic said:In the absence of case law, look at the way things were at the founding.
divemedic said:How is Congress supposed to grant the letters of Marque if the people they were granting them to did not have access to the means of carrying it out?
divemedic said:The 2A was written to prevent a Federalist government from taking arms from the people ever again. IMO, the experiment has failed.
divemedic said:This is not the country that the founders intended
Hkmp5sd said:Wow. We finally agree on something.
However antiquated you may find these clauses, they are still part of the Constitution. Until such a time as they are amended or repealed, they still have meaning, whether or not they are used.T.G. said:Like the militia, Letters of Marque are a defunct dead letter.
....
The Second Amendment was written to allow the States to arm their militias
Antipitas said:However antiquated you may find these clauses, they are still part of the Constitution. Until such a time as they are amended or repealed, they still have meaning, whether or not they are used.
Antipitas said:The Miller case can still be interpreted, when used in conjunction with the above Constitutional mandates, as bearing arms in common use (by the military).
Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.
The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
Antipitas said:But as long as the clauses remain within the COTUS, the Hughes Amendment is in jeopardy. The Court knows and acknowledged this.
That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.
Mike Irwin said:The militia is hardly dead.
Mike Irwin said:During World War II the United States Government procured, and provided, arms to citizens who provided internal security for war production plants and lesser, but no less critical, facilities.
Mike Irwin said:If the militia were truly dead, it is likely that it would have been stricken at that time, or during the later times that that section of US code was updated (in the 1950s, to account for creation of a separate Air Force).
The militia, organized OR unorganized (there is a difference in US code) is hardly dead.
Mike Irwin said:Your proof in as much as the laws were repealed is... what?
Mike Irwin said:You're also saying that there will never again be a national emergency of that scope?
Mike Irwin said:That wording very CLEARLY points out the difference between the organized militia and the unorganized militia
Mike Irwin said:giving both organizations force of law and equal weight
Mike Irwin said:You may also want to educate yourself on the activities of the unorganized militia in Oregon and Alaska during World War II, especially in Alaska, where some unorganized militia troops, unpaid VOLUNTEERS, actually saw combat against the Japanese.
greensteelforge said:In the absence of the "well regulated militia", you're a jackass with a rifle.
TG said:Can you cite any controlling court case that says the second amendment protects the right of the people to bear any and all types of arms such as artillery or rocket launchers?