The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - Could this mean that a semi auto ban would be overturned?

maestro pistolero · February 27, 2009, 02:00 AM

Isn't Justice Scalia saying here what the court meant by dangerous and unusual weapons, and doesn't this statement clearly draw a distinction between sophisticated military arms and small arms such as the M16?

Justice scalia. writing (in dicta) for the majority in Heller Vs DC

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 as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. 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 lim*
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

February 27, 2009, 02:00 AM	#1
maestro pistolero Senior Member Join Date: August 16, 2007 Posts: 2,153	Could this mean that a semi auto ban would be overturned? Isn't Justice Scalia saying here what the court meant by dangerous and unusual weapons, and doesn't this statement clearly draw a distinction between sophisticated military arms and small arms such as the M16? Justice scalia. writing (in dicta) for the majority in Heller Vs DC 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 as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. 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 lim* ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.