View Single Post
Old January 20, 2013, 06:44 PM   #4
maestro pistolero
Senior Member
Join Date: August 16, 2007
Posts: 2,148
From the Heller Decision, majority opinion:
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolu-tionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.”
"Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra."
I happen believe this is actually quite a twisty leap in logic for a purported originalist, but that's the decision we are left with. Now, if the court at least adheres faithfully to that standard, I believe AR15s and pistols with standard capacity magazines (and anything that shares identical performance characteristics with them) ought to be on safe ground.
maestro pistolero is offline  
Page generated in 0.04278 seconds with 7 queries