Posted on 08/16/2008 11:19:29 AM PDT by RKV
A bit more from Heller...
“Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to ‘keep and bear Arms’ in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as ‘the people.’
We start therefore with a strong presumption that the Second Amendment right is exercised individually and belongs to all Americans.”
And...
“United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.”
DC v. Heller
Further...
I remind all of the Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution which defines the missions of the militia. Full auto weapons are precisely those needed to perform the militia’s responsibilities under Article 1 Section 8. A militia which is unable to perform it’s Constitutionally defined missions cannot be said to be “well-organized.” Nor can the Feds or the States dis-establish the militia short of amending the Constitution since by virtue of the 2nd Amendment it is “necessary for ... security.”
Everyone must read the same books to have 1st Amendment protections also. Really simple if you think about it.
Because they're banned. ...and therefore fall within the category of dangerous and unusual weapons that the government can prohibit for individual use.
They're dangerous because they're uncommon because they're banned. This is the sort of twit that runs our judgeocracy.
It will only happen if he gets competent legal counsel.
The elites REALLY want to keep full auto weapons out of the hands of the citizens. By any means necessary. They are afraid, and should be. Take a minute and read the decision, it’s not at all difficult to spot the factual and logic errors the judge is making to bend the argument to his conclusion. Here are two doozies.
1) “The fact that a particular
weapon may be susceptible to military use does not by itself establish a Second Amendment right to possess the weapon.” Miller says just the opposite.
2) “The role of the jury is to decide facts, not legal issues.” This is an assertion of naked judicial power and completely inconsistent with our legal history. “It is presumed that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision… you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, State of Georgia vs. Brailsford, 1794
This is the sort of twit that ruins our judiciary. I guess these "people" have never seen any sort of shooting match. Even Machine guns have scored shooting matches.
GUN PORN! And this is a family web site. Shame... Heh.
simple—get rid of the twit.
Nice thompson.
Machine guns are not in "common use", a term in search of a definition, because, the government requires a stamp for each one. Thereby, creating a lack of "common use." I believe this falls into the "Catch-22" category.
Are soldiers and government agents not law-abiding citizens? I wouldn't particularly disagree that machine guns are not in common use by law-abiding citizens other than soldiers, since it seems that the government agents who use machine guns tend to do so rather lawlessly, but I don't like the implied slam at soldiers.
Fist-to-face
That hair looks like something outta the movie - There’s Something About Mary. :-)
These kinds of cases (where someone’s been arrested for illegal possession) aren’t going to help advance things under Heller. IMO, the best way to get the machine gun ban overturned is for a private citizen to arrange to “buy” an automatic weapon from a cooperative dealer (one who has stock to sell to LEOs). The person would need to pay for it and do all the ATF paperwork and send in the fee like you would for any other NFA weapon. Then, when the ATF rejects the transfer, sue them under Heller. I think that suit is winnable and then the ATF would have to start registering new machine guns. Getting rid of the registration requirements could come later.
But a strict reading of Heller probably doesn’t require the court to overturn the law against possessing unregistered NFA weapons. And the more circuit courts that rule on such cases, the more case law there is to make the valid case to eliminate the ban on registration that much more difficult.
> Full auto weapons ARE lawfully used by government
> employees, so citizens should be able to keep and
> bear them too.
It’s estimated that there are about a quarter million
of them legally owned by private citizens as well.
And they definitely are “militia” weapons.
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.