[Saltmeat]

I agree. The second amendment has no limits. If there is a limit to the type of firearm that a citizen can own, then the same government can limit how many firearms a citizen can own. It could also limit the number of rounds of ammunition that one can posses.

This case brings to front and center the ridiculous argument about “assault rifles.” The only difference between the assault rifle bought and sold on the open market today and any other semiautomatic weapon is appearance and perhaps magazine capacity. Yet gun control advocates beat this dead horse to no end.

Am I missing something in this post. Was Mr. Hamblen an officer in command of a National Guard unit in TN? If so, then his case appears to be even stronger because the militia question is totally moot. He not only is a citizen but is without question a member of a recognized militia.

He may be the perfect storm to take this case all the way.

[Old Teufel Hunden]

"He may be the perfect storm to take this case all the way."

My fear is that the Supremes would narrowly define this part of the second amendment. In other words, yes the citizen can own a fully auto rifle but it is reasonable for the government to put restrictions on this ownership such as licensing (which they already do). They would then uphold what happened to him. In the Heller case, in the opinion Scalia wrote he did mention that it was legal for the Government to put reasonable restrictions on the second amendment. They might find this a reasonable restriction as defined under Heller.

I guess the next question would be is it reasonable that you have to pay up to 20,000 dollars to own a fully auto rifle (pay for it and then pay for the license) because the government does not allow gun companies to manufacture fully auto rifles for the civilian market. Could that restriction be struck down?