Shall not be infringed, what does that mean?

[MTA]

I wont be happy until I can have this

 

[Kar98]

I wont be happy until I can have this

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit...



Although here we could argue that it being towed and mounted on a trailer, it just might fall outside the definition of arms one could "bear".

But seriously, on the subject of "military arms protected by the 2nd Amendment for ownership by civilians", lets not forget that in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), counsel for the U.S. argued the NFA did not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment because the short-barreled shotgun was, in their opinion, NOT a weapon of a kind used by military or militia.

 

[avvidclif]

Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.

I guess I'm being simplistic but that seems clear to me. Covers everything from slingshots to M16's, SAW's, and M60's. Try taking quad 50's into your hands.

 

[easy rider]

And you guys complain about the cost of .338.

 

[Chirpy]

Do they look better mounted in the bed of a Ford or a Chevy?.....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Always gonna look better in a Ford.

 

[easy rider]

I think if you plan on mounting a quad 50 in the bed of any pick-up, you had better modify that bed quite extensively.

 

[TheDan]

Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.

"or useth in wrath" is going to encompass pretty much anything.

When the BoR was written, the majority of cannons were privately owned. Cannons are expensive so it wasn't common for an individual to own one, but it wasn't abnormal.

 

[MTA]

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeit...


Although here we could argue that it being towed and mounted on a trailer, it just might fall outside the definition of arms one could "bear".

But seriously, on the subject of "military arms protected by the 2nd Amendment for ownership by civilians", lets not forget that in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), counsel for the U.S. argued the NFA did not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment because the short-barreled shotgun was, in their opinion, NOT a weapon of a kind used by military or militia.

I think we can agree on owning a pair of Flak88s

 

[benenglish]

But seriously, on the subject of "military arms protected by the 2nd Amendment for ownership by civilians", lets not forget that in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), counsel for the U.S. argued the NFA did not infringe upon the 2nd Amendment because the short-barreled shotgun was, in their opinion, NOT a weapon of a kind used by military or militia.

Everyone who values the 2A should read (and memorize much of) U.S. v Miller. That case was so incredibly weird in so many ways yet it set the huge precedent that federal gun control could be done without a scrap of logic and still be constitutional.

Here are the basics but everybody should read the entire text.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

US District Judge William Young says that the average US citizen doesn’t “need” an AR-15 and has upheld the Assault Weapons ban passed in Massachusetts on Friday.


“In the absence of federal legislation, Massachusetts is free to ban these weapons and large capacity magazines,” Young wrote. “The AR-15’s present-day popularity is not constitutionally material. This is because the words of our Constitution are not mutable.They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted.”




Da Judge said this: "the words of our Constitution are not mutable”. They mean the same today as they did 227 years ago when the Second Amendment was adopted." Well Judge, I agree with you, in fact I agree 100% on that sentence. Based upon YOUR judgement, the 2nd Amendment applied to what, a 1776 Brown Bess Musket ONLY or did it apply to all the Muskets that the PEOPLE had in their possession at that time? Well, according to you it applied to WE the People collectively what we owned at the time. That said, in FACT these were the ASSAULT WEAPONS of the day, according to you and since our Constitution is in effect today as it was then, then it applies to the ASSAULT weapons of TODAY. YES, Judge the words of the 2nd Amendment are NOT "MUTABLE" then or NOW!


Federal Judge Stands Firm on Massachusetts “Assault Weapons Ban”

Says "Right to Bear Arms" Doesn't Include AR-15s or High Capacity Magazines


http://www.alloutdoor.com/2018/04/1...ent=2018-04-17&utm_campaign=Weekly+Newsletter

 

[Kar98]

If the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets, then the 1st only applies to standing on a soap box in front of the town tavern and to carrier pigeons and parchment and quill, not to the high speed assault Internet developed by the military.

 

[satx78247]

To All,

One thing that I find to be "ODD", "PECULIAR" & LOONY" is that it's in many ways EASIER to buy/possess/use a multiple rocket launcher, a MIG 23, a Sherman tank, a Quad-50 or some other (possibly) NON-2nd Amendment weapon than it is a FA M16.

yours, satx

 

[TheMailMan]

A quad 50 requires the same paperwork as a M16. Actually more since there are four tax stamps involved.

 

[easy rider]

A quad 50 requires the same paperwork as a M16. Actually more since there are four tax stamps involved.

Sure, take the fun out of it.

 

[Sam7sf]

I think the 86 machine gun ban should go away. Also nfa should be done away with. Being an nfa owner, it's nothing but over the top jump threw the hoops type bs with a tax. The worst part about for example a form 4 is they ask why you need it. Apparently just because I want it isn't a good answer. Total horse poop. I picked hearing protection. What a crock. Another thing that gets under my skin is shall issue states. They sure do ask a lot of questions that aren't relevant to shall issue. In oregon they want references. In Texas I see they want a job history. I'm fine providing both. However imo, who f'ing cares when you pass your background check? Someday they will ask us what our favorite color is and that point I'm writing ham.

As I said machine guns and nfa shouldn't be regulated as they are. Just leave it a regular bg check. Lol no one needs a nuke but for small arms I think the second amendment gives citizens the right to current firepower. Plus, convictions from nfa violations are illogical. Assuming its just that and a person has no other shady charges. Suppressors are just metal bodies with baffles. Is that really worth the money dumped into regulating them? Sbr's are less lethal than a full length barrel. Machine gun bans ie the 86 ban is a violation of our rights in the sense most people can't afford to buy one. That alone imo is wrong. Anytime a person can't afford to use their rights, we know we have a problem. But that's what they do. It's been their plan for a long time. Tax us to us guns to the point we can't have access to em. The worst is fees for dealers. In cool with a license fee. But an itar and excise? That's hard on small manufacturs. I believe after 50 guns made its 50 bucks a gun. So not only do extreme gun laws make things more expensive they also threaten jobs.

One of the biggest reasons I became a republican was financial. Democrats love to write blank checks to solve problems while not addressing real issues. Gun violence could be solved and it has nothing to do with guns. Ugh...I'm getting pissed.

 

[satx78247]

Sam7sf,

Personally, not only do I believe that the NFA should be repealed permanently & replaced with NOTHING but also that the NFA was & IS plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face.

ImVho, the SILLIEST of the NFA's requiremednts is to NOT remove ANTIQUE weapons from the NFA after 50 or more years, just as other firearms are converted to Curio & Relics.
I would love to "self-import" a Model of 1907, brass-mounted, MAXIM gun in 7x57mm, 8x57mm, 7.63 Russian or (, IF I could find an afrfordable one,) .30-06, with all "the goodies". = Fwiw, I know where there are at least FIVE Maxim guns in EXCELLENT or better condition for sale at about 1500.ooUSD or less each, OCONUS.)

NO criminal is going to pick a 100+YO, 130# watercooled MG on a tripod or "horsedrawn mount" to commit a criminal act in 2018. = It's plainly SILLY to continue to require such C&R firearms to be NFA.


yours, satx

 

[Sam7sf]

NFA was & IS plainly UNCONSTITUTIONAL on its face

Definitely! I waited 6 months for something that otherwise could have been done in 5 minutes.

 

[satx78247]

Sam7sf,

YEP.

yours, satx

 

[General Zod]

If the 2nd Amendment applies only to muskets, then the 1st only applies to standing on a soap box in front of the town tavern and to carrier pigeons and parchment and quill, not to the high speed assault Internet developed by the military.

Among the many things the anti's don't grasp when they claim the Second Amendment "only applies to muskets" is that at the time it was passed, it was not uncommon for private citizens to own crew-served artillery and for private shipping companies to ship their cargo in 24-gun sloops that could take on ships of the line if necessary.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Among the many things the anti's don't grasp when they claim the Second Amendment "only applies to muskets" is that at the time it was passed, it was not uncommon for private citizens to own crew-served artillery and for private shipping companies to ship their cargo in 24-gun sloops that could take on ships of the line if necessary.

I think anyone trying to justify that the 2nd only applies to muskets is something special stupid. IF they had wanted to to apply to Muskets then it would have said the 'right to keep and bear Muskets'.

The difference between a Musket of the 1700's and a M 4 is WHAT?

Both are a shoulder fired weapon

Both were issue guns to the standing Army of the US

Both would be classified as an Assault Weapon of their time

While one can say one is a Full Auto, the other only single shot, even there the argument does not stand the light of day as the technology of the day did allow it to be full auto...but lets pose the question. Would our forefathers written the 2nd any DIFFERENT had the 1776 Brown Bess fired Full Auto?

Curios, relics, MG, rules here, rules there all a bunch of CRAP. Al Capone went to jail for tax evasion not machine gun use, if the gangs of Chicago could have been stopped by banning MG's then why did the gangland killings go on and on. By that same thinking I guess is we can bring the carnage of MS 13 to a halt by banning Machetes...

IIRC I was age 10 on my birthday when I had saved up enough money mowing lawns @ .25 cents per, for $10 bucks, bought me a Issue Rem Rolling Block Navy model at Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria, Va. I did not have the money to buy the bayonet at that time and my daddy bought it for my birthday. Today the push is on to ban gun sales to those under 21. (if nothing else I see a SCOTUS case coming out of this, my logic says if I can join the Army and go to war at age 18 then I can buy/own a gun).