View Single Post
Old March 22, 2013, 12:41 PM   #13
elDiabloLoco
Member
 
Join Date: December 18, 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 77
200 years of emanating penumbras obscure what appears obvious to those of us not immersed in the nuances of a law school education in JD-dance and parsing-the-meaning-of-IS. i.e.....A lawyer I ain't.

The individuals RKBA is not just about: spitballs, slingshots, pellet guns for ravens in the crops, deer rifles for meat on the table, or even derringers for defense against either ill-tempered card sharps with knives in their pocket or divorce lawyers. RKBA is predominately about an individual being armed and able to form a militia against armies/soldiers foreign or domestic.

So the least common denominator is the weapon in the hands of grunt in an ordinary squad of infantrymen. The weapon in the hands of the infantryman is what is "in common use at the time". The failure to acknowledge this obvious and simple interpretation is crucial. 2A was not crafted for squirrel hunters, but for Redcoat hunters.

so this is completely bogus:
Quote:
"I believe that the vast majority of the American people agree with us, the vast majority of gun owners agree with us, that military-style assault weapons are — these are weapons of war; they don't belong in the street."
The fact that they are weapons of war in common use is exactly why they SHOULD BE constitutionally protected and widely available for purchase. ["they" = fully automatic select fire infantry combat rifles] While restricting full auto sounds reasonable to most.....reasonable is not the same as constitutional. A point which is made clear on an all too frequent basis by very nearly every major judicial ruling on a daily basis.

In 1776 that was some form of musket.

In 1934 that was a bolt action springfield/Mauser/Enfield. NFA is fine.

Transition to the semi auto starting around 1936. NFA still fine

Transition to the select fire full auto....legality of NFA is now carefully ignored for 50 years.

Bringing it to current day, the argument should be that select fire arms are now "in common use at the time" by the infantry. So select fire weapons are the present day bare minimum an individual has the right to own under 2A. The 1934 NFA is broken with respect to hand carried full automatic capable rifles.

If it is standard issue to an individual infantry soldier, it is good enough for your closet and mine. Full automatic rifles - obviously are constitutionally protected, as they are current issue to armed forces foreign and domestic.
Full automatic pistols? Not currently standard issue, can remain NFA. Ditto heavy machine guns, mortars, etc.

Doesn't seem to be the cause problems for the Swiss or Israeli's, where home closets are full of "weapons of war".

I don't particularly want one, but the fact that my neighbor might wish to own one is not going to make me loose sleep.

So if the gun grabberz want to argue that point, there should be a reasoned push-back that really hurts. Simply to make them re-consider the wisdom of opening a can of worms that even the pro gun lobby is hesitant to consider.

Be really fun to watch the irrational reaction of the grabberz too. Might get to see it here!

I think Scalia nailed it as far as he went. But I ain't no edumicated Juris Doctor.

Unwashed Mass
elDiabloLoco is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04377 seconds with 7 queries