Quick Question: What is a .50 cal BMG rifle?

[Hillary's Lovely Legs]

I am filling out a survey about gun ownership and have been asked about a .50 cal BMG rifle.

Could you please explain to me what this is and what it's used for?

Thank you

[robertpaulsen]

"Now, given the above, which types of books can be prohibited and who has the power to decide?"

You're right. The courts have no power to keep books from felons and criminals. The insane. 8-year -olds. Great analogy. It's real clear now.

My point is that it's significant that the 1937 USSC was interested in the relationship of a weapon to the militia, in this case a "shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length".

Don't you ever ask why? Could it be (gasp!) that the 1937 USSC saw a direct relationship in the second amendment between the RKBA and a state's militia? And that they were trying to determine if Mr. Miller's weapon qualified as a suitable militia weapon -- one which is protected by the second amendment?

"The Miller ruling, suggesting that the courts shall be the judge of what is suitable is in error. The Founders mandated that such infringements shall be prohibited."

That the courts shall be judge of what is suitable is in error? BWAHAHAHAHA! That's their function, for crying out loud.

Who determined that nude dancing was protected speech but that political advertisements within 30 days of an election were not? Who determined that the ten commandments was "establishing religion"? Who determined that a right to privacy allowed a woman to kill her baby -- but if someone else did it was murder? Who determined that feeling a container was not an unreasonable search?

Ah, but they're not allowed to determine what constitutes a militia arm, huh? You kinda lose your rationality and objectivity when it comes to the RKBA, don't you? You want the courts to treat the second amendment differently, don't you?

The USSC could have simply said that the 1934 NFA was constitutional in that the second amendment does not protect an individual RKBA. OR, they could have agreed with the lower court and said that the 1934 NFA was unconstitutional because the second amendment proteced an individual RKBA.

But they didn't. They questioned the weapons relation to a militia. You refuse to see this as significant. Fine.

[robertpaulsen]

"What you haven't explained so far (that I've been able to see) is why an explanatory clause would limit the ordinary meaning of the operative clause."

The heart of the matter. You are correct, it shouldn't.

In other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "That the courts shall be judge of what is suitable is in error? BWAHAHAHAHA! That's their function, for crying out loud."

Their function is to obey the Constitution. I'm even of the opinion that they take an oath to do so. The Second Amendment DOES NOT say that the courts shall allow certain infringements of the right to keep and bear arms. It states quite the reverse.

When lower courts rule on "suitability" they are often overruled by the Supreme Court. How is that possible if the court's job is to judge suitability? The Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of suitability. The Constitution is. The means by which the well-regulated militia will be preserved is mandated; "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

You have admitted yourself that machine-guns are essential to the well-regulated milita. How is it possible for courts to find otherwise? What went wrong? What do you think our Founders would say to explain this infringement? Would they not say that the Supreme Court erred in Miller?

[inquest]

"Shouldn't"? The point here, is that all evidence is that it doesn't, the court's pronouncements notwithstanding.

I mean, hell, a couple months back you were accusing the 9th Circus of treason in regard to a particular ruling that you condemned. Why is it different here?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "The heart of the matter. You are correct, it shouldn't.
In other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning."

You have gone absolutely full circle in your "reasoning".

One minute you claim that the mandate should not be limited by an explanatory clause. The next minute you are suggesting that the Supreme Court in Miller was correct in inventing a power of courts to rule on the suitability of arms.

I pointed out above the nonsense of Miller by asking how it is possible for the militia to demonstrate the usefulness of a weapon if the courts have outlawed its manufacture, ownership, possession, transfer, or use.

[robertpaulsen]

"The point here, is that all evidence(?) is that it doesn't, the court's pronouncements notwithstanding."

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

Well yeah, other than numerous court rulings to the contrary, and according to my scientific poll of all NRA members, we feel that the second amendment is an individual right.

"Why is it different here?"

I believe that when I called the Ninth Circuit ruling treasonous, it was that they were ruling contrary to established federal law. IMO, that was treason.

Their ruling here is wrong.

[robertpaulsen]

There are facts. There are opinions.

I know you confuse the two when you post. I don't.

[inquest]

I believe that when I called the Ninth Circuit ruling treasonous, it was that they were ruling contrary to established federal law.

Actually, "established federal law" had not yet determined that the "legitimate medical purposes" referred to in the CSA did not include assisted suicide. And in any case, what you're really saying in the above comment is that the 9th ruled against your interpretation of established federal law. Obviously it wasn't their interpretation thereof.

So whether we're talking about "established federal law" or the Constitution itself, the choice is the same: either you can go along with the courts' "interpretation", or you can call a duck a duck when they clearly get it wrong.

[tpaine]

robertpaulsen wrote:

There are facts. There are opinions.

Here are some facts you can't refute:

My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA, -- and I, and thousands of my fellow citizens, have no recourse.
We are being outvoted by a tyranny of the majority, and the demented paulsens of this republic applaud.

You are grossly misstating my point. I'm not talking about a "violation of rights". I'm talking about whether or not those rights are protected by the second amendment.

You are backing the 'right' of CA to prohibit assault weapons paulsen.
That is ~gross~ on your part. Your whining efforts to deny being a gun grabber are ludicrous.

You support the State of CA's effort to ban 'evil' weapons. -- My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA.

There you go again with that word, "violated". Your RKBA is not protected by the state of California, true.
But Nevada protects your right. If it's that important, move.

Whatta clown you are paulsen. The State has no power to make me move, just as it has no power to prohibit my right to own an 'assault' weapon.

[robertpaulsen]

"... had not yet determined that the "legitimate medical purposes" referred to in the CSA did not include assisted suicide"

This is why you need to be specific. I was referring to my comments on the 9th Circuit ruling on Raich v Ashcroft.

The CSA was passed by both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President over 30 years ago. Every federal court ruling since then and prior to the Ninth's ruled the CSA constitutional. Every one. Even the dissenting judge in Raich v Ascroft said it was constitutional.

How much more "established federal law" can it be?

My interpretation my a$$.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "There are facts. There are opinions. I know you confuse the two when you post. I don't."

Great.

Is it a fact that the militia clause in the Second Amendment does not limit the right protected?

Is it a fact that the US Supreme Court in Miller erred by inventing a suitability test for arms which is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment.

[robertpaulsen]

"and the demented paulsens of this republic applaud."

No, I don't applaud.

But you firmly believe that your RKBA relief will come from the second amendment. That when we get the right case in front of the right USSC judges, manna will fall from heaven.

I'm telling you that it's a pipe dream. Your relief will come from an amendment to the California state constitution, protecting a citizen's RKBA.

"But, but, robertpaulsen, that's too hard! That means that I have to get off my ass and actually do something about my situation."

Yeah, tpaine, rather than just sitting at your keyboard typing, "the second amendment applies to the states", you actually have to do something.

[robertpaulsen]

"Is it a fact that the militia clause in the Second Amendment does not limit the right protected?"

It is a fact that the lower federal courts have not ruled that way. Even the 5th Circuit in Emerson said the right may be restricted -- and that's the favorable ruling!

"Is it a fact that the US Supreme Court in Miller erred by inventing a suitability test for arms which is specifically prohibited by the Second Amendment."

Erred? No, they didn't. Keep in mind that in Miller the USSC was only exposed to the governments side of the case. The government stated:

"... the cases are unanimous in holding that the term "arms" as used in constitutional provisions refers only to those weapons which are ordinarily used for military or public defense purposes and does not relate to those weapons which are commonly used by criminals."

"Thus in Aymette v. State [2 Humph., Tenn.154 (1840)], supra, it was said (p. 158):

"As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured, is of general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms, the right to keep which is secured, are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution.'" (Id. at 18-19)."

So, the USSC remanded the case to determine if the weapon was of a type that could be used by a militia. A resonable request.

Not to you, of course.

The USSC should just assume the sawed-off shotgun was used by the militia. Besides, who cares? As we all know, the second amendment protects the right of the individual to keep and bear any weapon for any purpose anytime and anywhere, with absolutely no infringements, 'cause that's what it says .... if we leave off some words .... and if we treat the second amendment differently than all other amendments .... and if we listen to the NRA not Sarah Brady ....

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Your relief will come from an amendment to the California state constitution, protecting a citizen's RKBA."

And how will a Kalifornia constitutional amendment affect federal infringements? Not at all.

Given that the entire nation is tremendously more pro-Second Amendment than Kalifornia, why is it not more reasonable to work for an amendment to the US Constitution to protect the right to keep and bear arms from both federal and state infringement?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said in post 473: "So, the USSC remanded the case to determine if the weapon was of a type that could be used by a militia. A reasonable request. "

robertpaulsen said in post 462:"The heart of the matter. You are correct, it shouldn't. In other non-second-amendment cases, the courts have ruled that these clauses do not limit the meaning."

[robertpaulsen]

"And how will a Kalifornia constitutional amendment affect federal infringements? Not at all."

I believe tpaine stated, "My RKBA's is being violated by my State, CA,". He said nothing about federal infringement. Why did you bring that up?

"Given that the entire nation is tremendously more pro-Second Amendment than Kalifornia, why is it not more reasonable to work for an amendment to the US Constitution to protect the right to keep and bear arms from both federal and state infringement?"

Yeah, and while we're at it, we'll include in there a tax cut, ban homosexual civil unions, expel the illegals, ...

Boy, aren't you all of a sudden Mr. Centralized Government, huh? Don't like states rights?

[robertpaulsen]

Do something different. Contribute to the thread.

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "He said nothing about federal infringement. Why did you bring that up?"

Because the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land and I made the case that this would be easier than a Kalifornia amendment.

We have spoken about "incorporation" of the First Amendment in the past. Was that a bad idea? Would incorporation of the Second Amendment be a bad idea?

[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: "Do something different. Contribute to the thread."

I thought that my pointing out in post 475 your self-contradiction was a contribution to the thread.

[robertpaulsen]

Still can't tell the difference between fact and opinion? What, do I have to mark these for you and you alone?