Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules?

According to the SCotUS:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

 

Actually, at that time civilians often had better guns than the military. The Brown Bess musket wasn't nearly as good as most Kentucky or Pennsylvania rifles.

 

Are you going to contribute or talk about your feelings all day? And yes, we know you're a liberal. We can see your avatar.

 

Why yes. Yes they have. Seems they are also under the false impression that SCOTUS will then have to "re-rule" on this. Likely not. This can and will be dismissed without further action.

 

You mean that fine example of a five door sports car?

 

Its about freedom hating Leftist dictators trying to oppress people by stripping them of their rights.

In addition to that, each and every single time some wackjob moonbat dip(*)(*)(*)(*) liberal tries to attack gun ownership ...gun sales (*)(*)(*)(*)ING SKYROCKET!

I'm probably going to buy another rifle myself as a result of this and I don't live anywhere near Maryland.

 

Believing in the Bill of Rights does not equate to obsession. Or do you simply not understand the definition of obsession? We certainly get a lot of liberals on this forum who clearly can't grasp the definitions of words that normal people had mastered before they were ten years old.

 

When exactly was that "once already"?

Shay's rebellion? The Whiskey Rebellion?

Both of which wee put DOWN by that "well regulated militia"

 

Considering the text and spirit of the Second Amendment, it does stand to reason that the ownership and bearing of military-grade weapons in particular was intended as a right. What good is a "well-regulated militia" without military weapons? The militia was our military back then! We didn't have a professional military like today.

Of course, this also indicates that this amendment is out of date and being misinterpreted today, since again, it was intended for our nation to have militias, i.e. armed and combat-trained citizen soldiers. Having the professional military rather negates that, which calls into question the purpose and usefulness of the Second Amendment.

- - - Updated - - -

What is a right? In the end, it's whatever we decide it is by popular consensus...

 

I know this.

My comment was in regards to the judges stupid ruling that said "we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war."

Well, when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, the military and civilians both had the same weapons which happened to be "weapons of war."

So, the judges ruling is baseless.

 

All true.

 

Correct.

 

We are a Democratic Republic with people having ,regardless of position or wealth, the power to vote and decide on what people run the nation at all levels there is no reason to resort to insurrection and rebellion the only reasons to bear arms is self-defense, sporting use like hunting and sport shooting and to be part of the militia and any rifle with decent features can meet the last need. And the 2nd Amendment covers a Militia this to be interpreted by Congressional law which does have a category for the "unorganized" persons with arms being part of the Militia. What you people forget is calling up the Militia for use during war is a CONGRESSIONAL POWER as if funding and training said forces and how they are to be used you serve in the Militia only under Federal and possibly State (if the State organizes) levels its not meant to be used against the government.

 

At the moment.

All of which 'assault weapons' excel at.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Glad I could help.

 

The weapons they are banning are not used in the military.

 

Some surprising news from the ATF:
-------------------------------------------

http://www.outdoorlife.com/gun-news-week-atf-says-assault-rifle-is-bogus-term

ATF Says "Assault Rifle" is a Bogus Term

A Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) “white paper” correctly identifies “assault weapons” as a politically contrived term with no real meaning and recommends dramatic federal law revisions in how they are regulated.

Authored by ATF second-in-command Ronald Turk, the “white paper” also supports the proposed “Hearing Protection Act,” which would eliminate firearm suppressor regulations that costs the agency more than $1 million a year in overtime pay and occupy the time of 30 full-time employees despite a “lack of criminality.”

 

What they are regulating are rifles and actions that have been around for 100 years plain and simple. They just don't like how they look.

 

In this instance the right of gun ownership is defined by the very document that defines all of our most important rights.

If gun ownership isn't a right then neither is voting, speed trial by jury of peers, cruel and unusual punishment for crimes, free speech, or anything else in the Constitution.

One radical moonbat judge simply cannot be allowed to change this.

Do you not see how amazingly dangerous this is to all of our rights?

Do you not realize that if we allow a precedent like this to be set it jeopardizes everything?

You might not like the fact that gun ownership is a right but surely you understand that if we allow this tyrannical oppressive action to stand then we are creating the conditions for a judge in another district to remove a right that you do agree with.

 

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting and sports shooting, and everything to do with defending against a tyrannical government and protecting the nation from foreign invaders.

The militia is not the military. The militia are the people and without the people there wouldn't be a militia.

And your focus on militia doesn't diminish "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." They are two independent rights of the people.

The 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people to own weapons and protects their right to join a militia.

 

Two enumerated Congressional powers verbatim:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Militia Law wording verbatim:

http://legisworks.org/sal/32/stats/STATUTE-32-Pg775.pdf

The general population is the Reserve Militia if armed and they volunteer over the Organized Militia that is those under government control at some level. However calling up said Militia of either type for duty is a government right under the Congress including pay, training, equipping and deployment your not an armed mob your there to defend the nation and only if you volunteer. Nowhere in the document is a right to commit Treason against the government by armed insurrection States tried that and were considered Treasonous and all its soldiers Traitors who after the Civil War had to swear allegiance to the Federal authority in order to become citizens again. There is no practical need for weapons of a level to be military issue however you may be armed with weapons of lower level the government says you may have for other lawful purposes. The Court wisely separated the two roles of persons the right of the government for proper military weaponry and the civilians who may have less deadly but still efficient weapons.

 

What does this have to do with what I said? This doesn't make anything I said false or untrue.

This doesn't say that the Federal government is the ONLY entity that can arm a militia.

The militia is already armed because it is made up of ordinary armed citizens.

The Federal government can call on the militia and give them any extra weapons and/or supplies they may need in addition to what they already have to fight the battle they need to fight.

http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/56/organizing-the-militia

 

It's all three for me, but I have the ability to think in a broader array of scenario's.

 

None of this has anything to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.

 

Look at it a different way.
A firearm in the 18th century ignited a propellant in a closed tube. The resulting hot expanding gases propelled an object out of the tube at a high speed.
A firearm in the 21st century ignites a propellant in a closed tube. The resulting hot expanding gases propel an object out of the tube at a high speed.

The basic principle has not changed, so should still have the same protection of the Constitution.

 

I am not too bound up over this ruling. I think it is just what the NRA and others were looking for, A Supreme Court ruling. Bring it on.

As others here have stated,

"Why do you need a gun like an AR15?"
It's not about need, it is my second amendment right to own such a rifle.
"But 'assault weapons' aren't necessary for hunting."
First of all it is not an "assault weapon" and secondly, the second amendment isn't about hunting; it is about defending liberty from tyranny.
"So you're worried that a tyrant is going to take away your guns and your liberty?"
NO, actually I am not.... because we have the SECOND AMENDMENT.