Posted on 10/22/2013 11:34:05 AM PDT by lowbridge
On Monday the California 4th District Court Of Appeals ruled that 2nd Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic “AK” type rifles. They opined, “that the right secured by the Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose, but is instead the right to possess and carry weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes such as hunting or self-defense.”
The court based its decision largely on the precedent set in the case of US v. Miller which allowed the banning of sawed-off shotguns on the grounds they had no military or civilian purpose. The court stated, “the ban on AK series rifles does not impinge on rights protected by the Second Amendment because assault weapons are at least as dangerous and unusual as the short-barreled shotgun.”
The case stems from the ultra-confusing Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, which banned “AR” and “AK” series weapons. Subsequent court rulings said that the state couldn’t ban a type of weapon and must name the forbidden guns specifically by make and model. CA then adopted a list of weapons that were unwelcomed, but the manufactures simply renamed their rifles to get around the list. Finally in 2000 the state banned features like detachable magazines and pistol grips to keep these “assault weapons” illegal.
The defendant, William Zondorak, was busted with an AK-type weapon that appeared on the list of banned guns. Even though his rifle is identical to ones that are sold legally in California, because it was on the list, he’s in deep dog-doo. Any AK or AR receiver that is on the list, even if the gun has been reconfigured to meet CA standards, is still banned.
(Excerpt) Read more at downtrend.com ...
“using a missile of no more than the size of a sewing needle, would prove to be much more deadly.”
Whoopee!
My wife’s supplies for her quilting will now be verboten. And she thought I was the aberrant one.
It is really hard to keep up these days.
You really can’t fix STUPID!
If you have oe either hide it or band together and use them.
Honey Tyrant Blackrobe don't give a s**t.
A railgun is an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher based on similar principles to the homopolar motor. A railgun comprises a pair of parallel conducting rails, along which a sliding armature is accelerated by the electromagnetic effects of a current that flows down one rail, into the armature and then back along the other rail.[2]
Railguns have long existed as experimental technology but the mass, size and cost of the required power supplies have prevented railguns from becoming practical military weapons. However, in recent years, significant efforts have been made towards their development as feasible military technology.
“Talk about twisted logic.”
Thay also say that full auto weapons are not covered by the 2nd because they are not in common use. Well they are not in common use since the govt tightly restricts their use and availability. They also do not stipulate what % of the population constitues “common”. I guess they decide arbitrarily where the cutoff is. No possibility of abuse there.
it’s not stupidity... it’s a deliberate attempt to subvert the 2nd amendmend by the government against the people.
Tyranny, pure and simple.
Founders had CANONS. Canons were on PRIVATE ships during the war of 1812. You might say what about TANKS, I say people OWN and USE PRIVATE PLANES which, might be used dangerously (a little sarcasm here).
The Second Amendment was about protection against an intrusive, out of control GOVERNMENT.
The U.S. Constitution {See Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11} authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water". That means they expected individuals to have enough firepower to take on foreign ships and armies (as shown by the "captures on land and water"). You aren't going to do that with a single musket, so at least some people had to own the 18th century weapon(s) of mass destruction, the cannon (and probably more than one).
Letters of Marque and Reprisal. Article I, Section 8, paragraph 11 of the U.S. Constitution authorizes Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water." A "reprisal" means an action taken in return for some injury. A reprisal could be a seizing of property or guilty persons in retaliation for an attack and injury. It could include forced used against the perpetrators for the redress of grievances. A reprisal could even involve killing a terrorist who is threatening further harm and cannot be captured.
"Marque" is related to "marching" and means crossing or marching across a border in order to do a reprisal. So a Letter of Marque and Reprisal would authorize a private person, not in the U.S. armed forces, to conduct reprisal operations outside the borders of the U.S.A.
Such Letters are grantable not just by the U.S. Constitution, but also by international law, which is why it was able to be included in the Constitution. The Letters are grantable whenever the citizens or subjects of one country are injured by those in another country and justice is denied by the government of that country.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letter_of_marque
Applying for, and legal effect of, letter of marque
The procedure for issuing Letters of Marque and the issuing authority varied by time and circumstance. In colonial America, for instance, colonial governors issued them in the name of the king. During the American Revolution, first the state legislatures, then both the states and the Continental Congress, then, after ratification of the Constitution, Congress authorized and the President to sign Letters of Marque. A shipowner would send in an application stating the name, description, tonnage, and force (armaments) of the vessel, the name and residence of the owner, and the intended number of crew, and tendered a bond promising strict observance of the country's laws and treaties and of international laws and customs. The commission was granted to the vessel, not to its captain, often for a limited time or specified area, and stated the enemy upon whom attacks were permitted. For instance, during the Second Barbary War President James Madison authorized the Salem, Mass., brig Grand Turk to cruise against "Algerine vessels, public or private, goods and effects, of or belonging to the Dey of Algiers".[17] (Interestingly, this particular commission was never put to use, as it was issued the same day the treaty was signed ending the U.S. involvement in the war—July 3, 1815.)
Yet private ship owners had cannon, and even as late as Teddy Roosevelt's Roughriders, the {William Tiffany}Tiffany Family gave them a couple of machine guns (Private interests gave the regiment superior firepower). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane or below:
http://www.americanrifleman.org/Webcontent/images/2013-2/20132279156-roughridersgun_m.jpg
from Paragraph 7
But this was not a Gatling; it was a potato digger and, as TR wrote in The Rough Riders (1899): “Our regiment had accumulated two rapid-fire Colt automatic guns, (pre John Browning's design 50 caliber M2 machine gun, see also Note-1) the gift of Stevens, Kane, {William Tiffany}Tiffany {as in Jewelry Family}, and one or two others of the New York men … .”
Note-1: Prior, to the July 1, 1898, assault on San Juan Hill.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodbury_Kane Spanish-American war service
When the Spanish-American War broke out, Kane, with other leaders of society, enlisted in the First United States Volunteer Cavalry, better known as the "Rough Riders." Kane and several of his East Coast friends including William Tiffany donated two Colt Machine Guns that Post $7,500 each. When the Rough Riders will Sic{were} allowed to expand from their original number of 778 to 1000, Kane was commissioned a lieutenant. Roosevelt mention him in his account The Rough Riders:
AK’s and feral pigs were made for each other.
Interesting. So AK-style weapons are not...arms.
“Sawed off shotguns were used in WW1, so the court here on Miller 1939 was wrong as well.” Also used in Viet Nam to clear out tunnels.
You couldn't have said it any better - I copied and sent it to myself for future reference
Your are correct.
OK, without straining at gnats, that's a reasonably reasonable statement, especially for a Kalifornistan court. What I don't see is the part where it says "no AK's", so how do they get from Point A to Point B? Is there some reason an AK is inherently unsuited to hunting and self-defense?
The black-robe fascists are scared sh*tless that we’ll use an AK to march them to the gallows for hanging. Too bad.
Congress mandated every member of the unorganized and organized militia was required to procure a military capable musket or rifle along with suitable ammunition. Any such militiaman too indigent to purchase their own arms was to receive funding from the government to help him to comply with this law. The Federal Court is acting in defiance of the letter and spirit of the Second Amendment as demonstrated by history, so the justices responsible for this decision are arguably liable to impeachment and conviction for violations of the U.S. Constitution, absent a future amending of the Second Amendment.
No, it's another example of why we need a full on revolution complete with tar, feathers, rope and trees littered with politicians, liberal lamestream media and activist judge types.
Just my humble opinion of course.
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.