Assault Weapons Not Protected by Second Amendment, Federal Appeals Court Rules

If you Mustard for Militia, it should be with the customary Relish M-4 and M-9 issue Arms as Militia duties and missions customarily require being completely Armed on a Sesame seed bun.

All puns intended.

 

Yes, and they are more easily modified. Presenting Arms at muster on a regular basis, should be a requirement for AR type gun owners.

 

I have no problem with well regulated militia being issued Arms.

 

That's inane. And still protected by Miller.

 

2nd, 4th, 7th, 9th.

 

Until Congress or a legislature or SCOTUS says "no."

 

In Kolbe v Hogan the 4th Circuit Court affirmed that AR15s and a round magazines are in common use for lawful purposes and therefore protected by the the Second Amendment. They still upheld the ban. That's why we don't trust those courts to actually follow SCOTUS or the Constitution.

 

SCOTUS will make that determination, as per Heller it reserved itself the right to do so.

Gorsuch is not going to be Scalia on this.

 

From Caetano v Massachusetts, 2016, a 9-0 SCOTUS decision:

"The Court has held that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that
constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,"

"The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual".

"The lower court’s ill treatment of Heller cannot stand. The reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense. The Supreme Judicial Court suggested that Caetano could have simply gotten a firearm to defend herself. 470 Mass., at 783, 26 N. E. 3d, at 695. But the right to bear other weapons is “no answer” to a ban on the possession of protected arms. "

"Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581".

 

And SCOTUS has reserved the right per Heller to change its mind on this issue.

 

With the right case, SCOTUS can reverse any previous decision. Abortion - now it's murder. Gay marriage, poof!

Stare decisis is always under consideration, too.

 

Of course it is, but I don't think SCOTUS wants us running around with grenade launchers or crew served weapons as every day weapons for every day citizens.

I might be wrong, and SCOTUS will empower you to mount .50 cal mgs on your Hummer.

 

.50 Caliber Browning Machine Guns are legal if you can afford them.
.50 Cals Semiautos cost much less.

You can mount 20 mm Cannon on Aircraft if you can afford the Astronomical price of Cannon plus cost of 20 mm ammo plus the $200 tax per round.

 

You missed "every day weapons for every day citizens."

You don't get a cookie.

 

I like a small well regulated Revolver, nice women give me plenty of free cookies.

 

I like revolvers.

 

People with Arthritis do well with a Revolver in .32 Magnum.

 

Is it ill-advised to take candy from strangers.

 

Cookies, not candy, and I know the women in question, very nice, very nice, early 20s...

 

I don't like evasive BS-what exactly do you think the second amendment was intended to do?

 

He is one of those Militia only Blokes !

 

Immaterial. It is intended to do what the legislature or SCOTUS says it intends to do.

I am a bloke who owns weapons. I have for a long, long time. My neighbors do not need certain types of weapons. The SCOTUS will make that determination for us, yes.

 

Do you have sniper weapons or mass shooting weapons?

 

Read my post above. Your question is immaterial.

 

If your neighbors say that you don't need sniper weapons or firearms used in mass shootings, and SCOTUS determines that to be so, are you prepared to turn in your hunting rifles, hunting shotguns and handguns?