Target Sports

Everything You're NOT Supposed to Know About Suppressors

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Crossroads

    Wild West Pimp
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 18, 2018
    98
    26
    Round Rock, TX
    Starting at 19:40 he talks about US vs Miller 1939 where it was argued the NFA infringed on short barrel shotguns. The Supreme Court ruled it didn't infringe because short barrel shotguns were not military weapons. Wait What? According to the poo spewers on the TVs no civilian needs a "Military Style" weapon. :confused:
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    The Supreme Court ruled it didn't infringe because short barrel shotguns were not military weapons. Wait What? According to the poo spewers on the TVs no civilian needs a "Military Style" weapon. :confused:
    This is why I've repeatedly told people for years to read US v. Miller. It's actually a great ruling for us. It holds that military weapons are specifically what the 2A protects.

    In Miller, the lower court erred badly on the facts but the SC couldn't fix that because of the unique (I think) defense presented. And, yes, I'm going to leave it at that because I want people to actually read the ruling and what's behind it.

    In fact, I believe I could argue that, with the right case, the rationale the court used to decide Miller could be used to overturn almost the entirety of the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, and any assault weapons ban. The ruling is short and well worth a read.
     

    pronstar

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jul 2, 2017
    10,542
    96
    Dallas
    This is why I've repeatedly told people for years to read US v. Miller. It's actually a great ruling for us. It holds that military weapons are specifically what the 2A protects.

    In Miller, the lower court erred badly on the facts but the SC couldn't fix that because of the unique (I think) defense presented. And, yes, I'm going to leave it at that because I want people to actually read the ruling and what's behind it.

    In fact, I believe I could argue that, with the right case, the rationale the court used to decide Miller could be used to overturn almost the entirety of the NFA, the Hughes Amendment, and any assault weapons ban. The ruling is short and well worth a read.

    Wow, that case is a great read, thanks for posting it


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Big Green

    In Christ Alone
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 5, 2018
    4,641
    96
    College Station
    Very interesting Ben, thank you for sharing.

    So, with the argument that only weapons to support the militia, I would have to turn in my 10/22 and exchange it for a M14? Where do I sign up?
     

    benenglish

    Just Another Boomer
    Staff member
    Lifetime Member
    Admin
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    23,933
    96
    Spring
    I would have to turn in my 10/22 and exchange it for a M14?
    No.

    To address that question, we have to look at what the Supreme Court has subsequently said about Miller. In the Heller case, it held that
    The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    In addressing how previous cases did or did not agree with this position, the opinion went on to say
    None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.
    They specifically addressed Miller thusly:
    (Miller) 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.
    Note the false equivalency established by the court. They said that arms "used by the militia" were the equivalent to arms "in common use".

    This is a bit of distorted reality that's should eventually be resolved. Until it is, though, everyone with a Fudd gun of any type (and I'm not throwing shade; I love my many, many Fudd guns) can stand on this ambiguity to say "My 10/22 is in common use, therefore it's a type used by the militia (according to the SC), therefore it's protected."

    Besides, that's not where the heat is right now. The heat is on "assault weapons" and the great thing about Miller is that it, in fairly plain language, makes it clear that weapons of war are what are protected by the 2A.

    I wonder if all those folks screaming to ban "weapons of war" have ever read Miller? 99.9% of them - probably not.
     
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,119
    Messages
    2,953,344
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom