Are all these lawyers and judges blind? It seems so simple to look at the precedents and come to the conclusion that an Assault Weapon ban or a modified ban such as the SAFE Act is unconstitutional.
For your viewing pleasure.
United States v. Miller (1939)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The state ruling cited in Miller:
Aymette v. State of Tennessee (1840)
A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative (p.159)use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
To me the conclusion seems obvious. The state is allowed to regulate unusual weapons not in common use by militaries in defense of the state. Therefore on the flip side, citizens, as part of the militia, are guaranteed the right to own common military arms for defense against tyranny of the state, which in this day and age is the ubiquitous semi-auto, detachable magazine rifle. WHY DO THE JUDGES NOT SEE THIS.
(Also I forgot to add that the Heller decision further affirms the individual's right to own such weapons.)
For your viewing pleasure.
United States v. Miller (1939)
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The state ruling cited in Miller:
Aymette v. State of Tennessee (1840)
A thousand inventions for inflicting death may be imagined, which might come under the appellation of an "arm" in the figurative (p.159)use of that term, and which could by no possibility be rendered effectual in war, or in the least degree aid in the common defence. Would it not be absurd to contend that a constitutional provision, securing to the citizens the means of their common defence, should be construed to extend to such weapons, although they manifestly would not contribute to that end, merely because, in the hands of an assassin, they might take away life?
The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing, or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defence. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.
To me the conclusion seems obvious. The state is allowed to regulate unusual weapons not in common use by militaries in defense of the state. Therefore on the flip side, citizens, as part of the militia, are guaranteed the right to own common military arms for defense against tyranny of the state, which in this day and age is the ubiquitous semi-auto, detachable magazine rifle. WHY DO THE JUDGES NOT SEE THIS.
(Also I forgot to add that the Heller decision further affirms the individual's right to own such weapons.)
