Posted on 11/05/2023 4:34:10 AM PST by MtnClimber
That the military has. They warned about keeping ‘standing armies’ around.
Much longer than that. Look up the Guycot pistol and rifle chain gun (or the Treeby) - one shot with each pull of the trigger, as only one example of what was available back in the 1700 - 1800s. (You can find an episode of ‘Forgotten Weapons’ that cover them.) And they weren’t the only ones. The various semi-autos were just more expensive and not mass produced. And most didn’t use the blow-back of the round to cycle the action.
Citizens had and used cannons.
SCOTUS has also ruled that weapons in common use cannot be banned by anyone.
Political decision, just like Roe vs Wade was a political decision. Just read the Constitution, then look at what our nation has become from “Judicial Interpretation” and stare decisis. Judges who make up law and grossly misinterpret what is written in plain English should be impeached.
The fact that drones will eventually be used for assassinating civilians makes shotguns more and more attractive.
Plus there was the Girandoni Air Rifle, carried by Lewis and Clark, that dates from the 1770’s.
“.....
Bump stocks can turn the AR-15 into a fully automatic weapon.
Both M16s and AR-15s use the same ammo and “deliver the same kinetic energy.”
Therefore, the court held that the AR-15 is essentially an M16, making it a weapon of war that can be denied to ordinary civilians.....”
I think that upon further judicial review, the three-judge panel's assumption about a bump stock is going to be reversed.
Citizens say otherwise.
Public servants don’t get to tell the masters what they can, and can’t own.
Just carry an M1 Garand or M14. Those rifles aren’t “assault rifles”, they are battle field rifles.
What I’d like to see at the appellate level if a three-strikes rule. Once you are reversed 3 times, you lose your job. sadly, this would work strongly against constitutional judges because liberal judges are so incredibly political. Frankly, I cannot think of a single example of a leftist judge who has ruled “I completely disagree with the outcome of this case, but I must rule according to the constitution.
Perhaps that is selection bias because I DO recall ‘conservative’ judges that said essentially that. Does anyone out there have any counter-examples?
Stupid judges. 😡🤬
you hope that they don’t declare that ar-15’s are NOT military weapons and that they should be allowed for self defense? A declaration like that woudl be affirming that civilians have the right to own such for self defense- Am i misunderstandign you?
I think so. We certainly want the Supreme Court to declare what IS protected. The problem arises when the Supreme Court declares what ISN'T protected.
At the time of our founding, "arms" were protected. That pretty much covers every weapon or device used for offense or defense.
The Heller decision established the "common use" test forbidding the banning of commonly owned arms. Machine guns are not commonly owned simply because the National Firearms Act of 1934 demanded a heavy tax and registration on them. Later laws outlawed the manufacture of machine guns for "civilian" use, a distinction which does not appear in the Constitution.
If the NFA of 1934 hadn't been passed, probably everybody who owns an AR15 today would instead own an M16. The cost to manufacture them would be almost identical.
Another test established by the Supreme Court is that some arms can be prohibited if they are "dangerous AND unusual". Every arm is dangerous since it can enable an attacker, like a firearm, or protect an attacker, like body armor.
So the real test results in the government being able to outlaw "unusual" weapons. That is ridiculous on its face. Stun guns, for example, would have been "unusual" up until the time they were common. The Caetano decision established that stun guns are commonly owned and are thus protected.
Another "myth" being supported by the anti-gunners is that weapons particularly suited to military use can be banned. Even Judge Benitez in California has a line in his decision overturning California's "assault weapons" ban that suggests that military weapons could be banned. That is absolute nonsense. The AR15 operates in a fashion quite similar to an M1 combat rifle from World War II. Does that make either one of them unsuitable for civilian use? I think not.
[[Another “myth” being supported by the anti-gunners is that weapons particularly suited to military use can be banned. ]]
Agreed, which is why they are trying to declare that any semi automatic rifle or pistol be declared a “weapon of war” or “assault weapon”.
Our Founding fathers wanted civilians to be as armed as the enemy in order to protect both themselves and the country, but our corrupt government stepped in and out of fear of we the people, banned certain weapons in order for the gov to maintain superior weaponry over civilians.
I guess my main point was that the sc should at the very least stop the left in their tracks, stop them from declaring semi-autos as “weapons of war”, and support our inalienable right to adequate self defense which means agreeing that citizens have a right to own guns to meet the enemy head on, ie automatic, select fire, and any other weapons that the enemy is bound to carry. We can’t as a nation repell an invasion/attack on the nation if we are outgunned at every turn.
I think it would be great if the sc stopped the relentless lying efforts of the left in their tracks,and then worked on restoring our right to own guns used by the military as well since we are going to be the ones cal.ed upon to protect this nation agaisnt all hostilities towards we the people by nations that hate us, and rogue governments- the left should be stopped by the sc from trying to further disarm us whole the rogue enemies within our nation become more well armed because they don’t follow the laws, and never will. The left in my opinion should be brought up on charges of pass8ng laws that make us more vulnerable and outlawing guns which are our inalienable right to own
I have a fairly long list of statements by our Founding fathers about guns on my profile page- it is really eye opening, revealing their common sense support of an armed society to protect us from all hostile enemies both foreign and domestic.
I think they are doing it, at least some of them.
When I first read the Bruen decision I was disappointed by the lack of the term "strict scrutiny". This has historically been the test used to protect the First Amendment and it's pretty strong protection. Unfortunately, the "strict scrutiny" test is an interest balancing test. It leans heavily toward rejecting infringements but it still allows government interest to play a part in the decision.
It took a second reading to realize that the Bruen decision test is far superior to "strict scrutiny". Bruen says to first decide whether the law under consideration involves the Second Amendment. Then it becomes the government's burden to show that our Founders tolerated a similar infringement at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified. The landscape of arms laws was pretty barren in 1791.
As a result, we have seen many lower court decisions go our way. One that excited me was a decision that the requirement for serial numbers is an infringement. This requirement didn't exist until, I think, 1968. This decision would kill the entire FFL system.
We have Trump to thank for a Supreme Court that decided Bruen. Now it remains to be seen whether a majority of that same court will follow their own precedent. If they do, there will be many celebrations ahead.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.