Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ole Cowboy, Apr 2, 2018.
I wont be happy until I can have this
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.
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.
And you guys complain about the cost of .338.
Always gonna look better in a Ford.
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.
"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.
I think we can agree on owning a pair of Flak88s
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.
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