Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

Evidence?

The 2nd Amendment is my evidence.

Where in the 2nd Amendment does it say that the people can and should be restricted to "keep and bear" weapons that the government deems acceptable????

 

Dispondent, this may be hard for you to learn, but you cannot be a privateer.

 

You are neither qualified nor authorized to make authoritative statements about the 2dA. You have an opinion. So what?

 

lol, this is why everyone calls you guys gun nuts.

I am an avid shooter/hunter. I have had my CCW for 12 years. I've been through numerous tactical handgun courses over the years. But claiming that the government barring people from owning nukes or frag grenades is unconstitutional is just silly.

 

Every right is able to be restricted, if the restriction serves a legitimate governmental interest. The supreme court has reaffirmed this hundreds of times.

 

That is actually irrelevant. What is relevant is that when the Founders were alive, they allowed private citizens the ownership of weapons of war. We are talking about the people who wrote and signed the Constitution; not the whiny liberals of today who are so afraid of inanimate objects they want to ban them without using the very same amendment process the Founders' gave us. Nobody here could argue against you folks attempting to introduce a new amendment and doing the necessary leg work. Should such a thing actually be accomplished, it would be Constitutional, and in fact anyone who claims to support the Constitution would have no basis for grievance. We of course are not seeing that. What we are seeing is gun grabbers attempting to relegate our rights into privileges through judicial activism or unconstitutional legislation. That is why we will never see eye to eye...

 

The 2nd is the shortest and most succinct amendment in the entire Constitution, having the ability to read and understand simple things like what 'shall not be infringed' means is all that is required, which means gun grabbers lose every time in the end...

 

Except a letter of marque or a reprisal (they are two separate licenses ) didn't allow you to ARM up, but to ATTACK certain shipping. It wasn't permission to acquire weapons otherwise barred, it was permission to USE weapons already owned in a particular manner that would otherwise be a crime (piracy).
If you don't believe me go read all the old Libel cases (libel the maritime law concept, not defamation). You'll notice that all the ships sport some firepower. For self defense. They didn't have letters, they just had the 2a which is perfectly sufficient.
This is historic fact.

 

And the court is wrong.

If that's what the founding fathers meant, then why didn't they preface that in the Bill of Rights???

 

You are neither qualified nor authorized to make authoritative statements about the 2dA. You have an opinion. So what?

 

Grenades existed way before the 2nd Amendment was ratified, yet the founding fathers didn't prohibit people from keeping and bearing grenades. Why?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grenade

 

Incorrect. Restrictions on constitutional rights are required to meet the standard of strict scrutiny. In order to meet the burden of strict scrutiny, the restriction must not only serve a legitimate government interest that supersedes the public interest, it must also be narrowly tailored with regard to how it goes about achieving only that one interest, and it must be the least restrictive approach possible of achieving that one and only one interest. It is difficult to demonstrate just what firearm-related restrictions clear all three hurdles of the standard of strict scrutiny.

 

That's why Circuit Courts won't use strict scrutiny, otherwise, bye-bye, gun laws.

 

Reality, you won't get to be a privateer, either. Sorry 'bout that.

 

As SCOTUS laughs at both of us.

 

So, you agree with every ruling that comes from the courts including citizen united?

 

I agree that we are bound by the rulings until they overturned by Constitutional procedure.

 

I don't agree with every ruling, but I abide the law even though I don't agree with all rulings/laws because I'm a law abiding citizen.

 

I wonder how many "criminals" will be created out of "law abiding citizens" if & when 30rd magazines etc are outlawed?

 

From the court's ruling:

"A prime example of the State’s evidence is that the most popular of the prohibited assault weapons — the AR-15 — is simply the semiautomatic version of the M16 rifle used by our military and others around the world.....

"The difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of those firearms is slight. That is, the automatic firing of all the ammunition in a large-capacity thirty-round magazine takes about two seconds, whereas a semiautomatic rifle can empty the same magazine in as little as five seconds.... Moreover, soldiers and police officers are often advised to choose and use semiautomatic fire, because it is more accurate and lethal than automatic fire in many combat and law enforcement situations.

"The AR-15, semiautomatic AK-47, and other assault weapons banned by the FSA have a number of features designed to achieve their principal purpose — 'killing or disabling the enemy' on the battlefield. See J.A. 735. For example, some of the banned assault weapons incorporate flash suppressors, which are 20 designed to help conceal a shooter’s position by dispersing muzzle flash. Others possess barrel shrouds, which enable 'spray-firing' by cooling the barrel and providing the shooter a 'convenient grip.' Id. at 1121. Additional military features include folding and telescoping stocks, pistol grips, grenade launchers, night sights, and the ability to accept bayonets and large-capacity magazines....

"We conclude — contrary to the now vacated decision of our prior panel — that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment. That is, we are convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are 'like' 'M-16 rifles' — 'weapons that are most useful in military service' — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. See 554 U.S. at 627 (rejecting the notion that the Second Amendment safeguards 'M-16 rifles and the like'). Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protection to the weapons of war that the Heller decision explicitly excluded from such coverage."
http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/141945A.P.pdf

So it sounds like according to the precedent set by Heller it is okay to ban such weapons. Noted.

 

ban interchangeable magazines, not guns!

 

Don't need to be chief. See above.

 

Millions.

 

No, the difference between the two firearms is a felony. This entire ruling is anti-gun judicial activism by some truly ignorant justices.

Flash suppressors don't conceal the shooter's position - they help protect his/her night vision. They freaking announce the position to anyone in front of the shooter's position.

Here's the FM on the M16. Show me where anyone is taught to "spray fire".
https://www.globalsecurity.org/jhtml/jframe.html#https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-9/fm3-22-9_c1_2011.pdf|||FM 3-22.9: Rifle Marksmanship M16-/M4- Series (With Change 1)

Folding and telescoping stocks, pistol grips and the ability to accept large capacity magazines are not purely military features, unless we've declared war on wild turkeys.

M16s are restricted for one reason, and one reason only - they are machine guns. They aren't restricted for flash suppressors,barrel shrouds, folding and telescoping stocks, pistol grips, grenade launchers, night sights, and the ability to accept bayonets and large-capacity magazines.

Semiautomatic AR-15s are so useful in military service that our military has never issued them, and has zero in the inventory. They have found bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump actions shotguns useful.

What exactly does "most useful in military service" actually mean?

Interesting that they allow bans on weapons as weapons of war and most useful to the military when the AR-15 has never been used in war and has absolutely no use to the military, as they've never owned any. Those in non-military standard calibers can't even be considered to be useful to the military at all. In wartime, those would be left in the arms room. That's how useful they are.

Curious that the AR-15 is like the M16 and can thus be banned, but the Mini-14 has the same relationship to the AC-556 and is never banned. This isn't about safety at all.[/QUOTE]

 

Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But it's settled US law.

They did. The courts powers are laid out in article 3. Subsequent amendments allow for rights to be restricted, if they can pass the strict scrutiny standard.