Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by trucker, Feb 22, 2017.

  1. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    A pistol-caliber AR carbine may be the best all-around home defense weapon -- certainly it is better than a shotgun in most situations.
     
  2. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Per the SCotUS:

    Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , 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.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
     
  3. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    All you need is money and time.
     
  4. jmblt2000

    jmblt2000 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Messages:
    2,281
    Likes Received:
    667
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's the point, at 1000 yards, even if my shot misses, they would be taking cover...Which means they're no longer mobile. And since most AR style rifles have an effective range of 300 to 500 yards I am a lot safer than they are. But I am talking about property protection, I agree a pistol is my first choice as well.
     
  5. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some clarifications that I didn't see in the thread:
    1. This was a 15-judge decision (10 to 5). King just wrote the majority opinion.
    2. The court cited Scalia's own words from the DC v Heller case. Scalia himself said that military weapons like the M-16 aren't covered under the 2nd amendment. He may have been making a snarky remark, but it still counts for precedent.
    3. The heuristic here is not whether a weapon is currently used or has ever been used in war, but rather whether a weapon is likely to first be used for recreation or personal defense outside of war. With the prefatory clause in mind ("well-regulated militia"), the idea is that weapons that a militia member is likely to bring from home are protected.

    It's likely the SCOTUS will take this up. Kennedy is the swing vote, who seems to indicate he'd uphold this ruling. But if he doesn't do that, or one of the liberal justices retires/dies before then, then this will probably be reversed.
     
  6. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    OMG, I have a military style cap and ball rifle.
     
  7. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yet an AR-15 is not an M-16 so not a military weapon.
     
  8. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have a M1903, M1 Garand and M1 carbine, all of which were actually used in war.
     
  9. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The model number isn't part of the heuristic.
     
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The model number isn't the issue -- the weapons are not practically, legally, or mechanically the same.

    That the M16 might not fall under the protection of the 2nd (and one wonders how THAT can be) in no way means the AR15 does not.
     
  11. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's fine. The similarity of one gun to another isn't relevant, either. A rocket launcher is distinctly different from an M-16, too, but it still isn't protected under the second amendment.
     
  12. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It is when you're using then "weapons of war, the M16 is not protected" argument.
    How does the fact the M16 may not be protected in any way translate to a sound argument that the AR15 is not protected?
     
  13. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And neither is operation, it's all about scary looks.
     
  14. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The M-16 is used as an example, not as a definition. From Scalia's opinion:
    "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service – M-16 rifles and the like – may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty."

    It's like if I say "Sodas, Coke and the like, are considered junk food." Arguing about how 7-Up is different doesn't mean it's not junk food.
     
  15. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't think Scalia was concerned about what did or did not look "scary." He certainly didn't mention that in his opinion, which the judges in this case referenced in making their decision.
     
  16. Andrew Jackson

    Andrew Jackson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2016
    Messages:
    48,451
    Likes Received:
    32,206
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah, Scalia had a point.

    According to the majority of 2nd Amendment defenders, it is possible for American children to develop a lifelong psychological complex if they feel that their 2nd Amendment rights could be violated.

    From what I have read (of the opinions of the Gun Lobby) their idea of "2nd Amendment rights" entails giving hand grenades to babies.
     
  17. Capitalism

    Capitalism Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2014
    Messages:
    5,129
    Likes Received:
    786
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Shush. You just look stupid.
     
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    M'Kay...
    How does the AR15 qualify as a "weapons that are most useful in military service", especially goven the fact not a single military issues them?

    Recall too that Heller said:
    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”


    As well as:
    But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty.

    And, said in the ruling, not in dicta:
    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... Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

    Are AR15s "dangerous and unusual?"
    Are they "in common use" for "traditionally lawful purposes"?
    Are they the "sort of lawful weapon" a person might bring to militia duty?

    These questions and their answers were not considered by the 4th; no honest ruling of the issue can be had without them.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You know this statement is not true.
     
  20. Hoosier8

    Hoosier8 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    107,541
    Likes Received:
    34,488
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meaning they referenced the looks, not the operation or use which are different.
     
  21. nra37922

    nra37922 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2013
    Messages:
    13,118
    Likes Received:
    8,506
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True enough but it does beat using a rock..
     
  22. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Anyone over the age of 45 can volunteer being a member of the unorganized militia. If you are over 45 years of age you can't be forced into the unorganized reserves. But you can volunteer.
     
  23. gamewell45

    gamewell45 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    Messages:
    24,711
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you deny that the weapons mentioned will not kill anyone?
    A shotgun will kill you just like an AR-15 or 9mm gun will and don't shush me, you're not my mother or father. Just stick to discussing the topic at hand.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2017
  24. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The court of appeals is limited to the facts of the original case. So if Maryland proposed that the AR-15 was either a "dangerous and unusual weapon" or a weapon "mostly useful in military service," and the other side didn't effectively challenge that, then the circuit court has to go with it. The only exception is when something is obviously wrong.*

    This case is about whether Maryland can ban weapons they determine to fall under this classification, not whether any weapons they have determined to fall under it are correctly categorized. That would have to be a separate challenge, as far as I'm aware.

    *Note: "Obviously wrong" meaning something like 2+2 = 5 kind of obvious.
     
  25. Burzmali

    Burzmali Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2009
    Messages:
    6,335
    Likes Received:
    2,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This case is about whether Maryland can ban weapons that fall into this category, not whether their categorization is correct. If this ultimately winds up being settled with the ban still in place, I assume the next challenge will be about whether the weapons on the list are properly categorized or not.
     

Share This Page