View Single Post
Old August 11, 2012, 12:56 PM   #10
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit held expressly (Henry at 9041) that machine guns are:
...highly “dangerous and unusual weapons” that are not “typically possessed by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 625, 627. Thus, we hold that the Second Amendment does not apply to machine guns.....
It's amazing how readily and authoritatively the court will embrace something that is not necessarily obvious and that was never held by the supreme court. But when the obvious (i.e. bearing outside the home) comes accross their plate, they feign deference to SCOTUS.

The Heller court specifically did NOT include M-16s and the like in any list of weapons that may be banned, even suggested that banning them would effectively detach the the first clause from the amendment altogether:

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 may well be true today that a militia, to be aseffective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society atlarge. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of theright.

Last edited by maestro pistolero; August 11, 2012 at 01:28 PM.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Page generated in 0.03950 seconds with 7 queries