Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Joeh" data-source="post: 2133346" data-attributes="member: 18680"><p>Mostly just for my own amusement/personal knowledge. </p><p></p><p>Up front, I know that we have some limitations on ownership of certain firearms (NFA and US v Miller, etc). </p><p></p><p></p><p> My question is, why? I'm looking through everything I can find to locate where a decision was made, referencing where or how these weapons/ordinance falls outside the protection of the 2A. </p><p> </p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I have found references in US v Miller about how there was no evidence presented that proved a reasonable relationship between a sawed off shotgun and preservation of a militia. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I have found in DC v Heller where they reference Miller: "It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,”the Court continued, “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.” </li> </ul><p> </p><p>All I can seem to locate is where people have violated the NFA, and then court decisions upholding the rulings, but never an explanation of why.</p><p></p><p> </p><p>So, then my question is, where, why and how are we prevented from privately owning automatic arms or ordinance, other than by the NFA? Heller makes clear mention in the passage I noted that it wasn't the fact that the firearm was being used for non-military purposes, but it was the type of firearm at use. </p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p> I can't seem to wrap my head around why private ownership of ordinance or automatic firearms would be any different from private ownership of semi-automatic firearms. </p><p> </p><p>A list of cases I am in the process of familiarizing myself with:</p><p></p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The National Firearms Act of 1934 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Gun Control Act of 1968 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The "Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act" of 1986 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The controversial Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Crime Control Act of 1990 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Brady Bill of 1994 </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 </li> </ul><p>Unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't usually provide too much information on the reasoning behind the bills. For example, the NFA wiki states that the purpose was to 'regulate what were considered 'gangster weapons' such as machine guns and short barreled shotguns', but no other real decision information other than what is covered. Or, as another example in the excerpt from DC v Heller where they discuss the firearm not being a type of firearm that is covered by the 2A. WHY is that weapon not covered? Where was the decision made that the only firearms citizens are allowed to privately own are those that are in conjunction with normal military equipment, or that it can contribute to the efficiency of a military/militia, and if that is truly what they ruled, then why are we still prohibited from ownership of actual ordinary military equipment? </p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe what I'm really looking for is a court ruling or decision regarding the 2A as, in fact, subject to these types of restrictions, and why they interpreted it that way. </p><p></p><p>Does anything like this exist, or am I pipe-dreaming hoping to find it? If this would better be suited for a private message with someone who is correctly versed in 2A legalese, I'd be happy to talk with someone there as well.</p><p></p><p>Thanks all!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Joeh, post: 2133346, member: 18680"] Mostly just for my own amusement/personal knowledge. Up front, I know that we have some limitations on ownership of certain firearms (NFA and US v Miller, etc). My question is, why? I'm looking through everything I can find to locate where a decision was made, referencing where or how these weapons/ordinance falls outside the protection of the 2A. [LIST] [*]I have found references in US v Miller about how there was no evidence presented that proved a reasonable relationship between a sawed off shotgun and preservation of a militia. [*]I have found in DC v Heller where they reference Miller: "It is entirely clear that the Court’s basis for saying that the Second Amendment did not apply was not that the defendants were “bear[ing] arms” not “for . . . military purposes” but for “nonmilitary use,” post, at 2. Rather, it was that the type of weapon at issue was not eligible for Second Amendment protection: “In the absence of any evidence tending to show that the possession or use of a [shortbarreled shotgun] 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.” 307 U. S., at 178 (emphasis added). “Certainly,”the Court continued, “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.” [/LIST] All I can seem to locate is where people have violated the NFA, and then court decisions upholding the rulings, but never an explanation of why. So, then my question is, where, why and how are we prevented from privately owning automatic arms or ordinance, other than by the NFA? Heller makes clear mention in the passage I noted that it wasn't the fact that the firearm was being used for non-military purposes, but it was the type of firearm at use. I can't seem to wrap my head around why private ownership of ordinance or automatic firearms would be any different from private ownership of semi-automatic firearms. A list of cases I am in the process of familiarizing myself with: [LIST] [*]The National Firearms Act of 1934 [*]The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 [*]The Gun Control Act of 1968 [*]The "Law Enforcement Officers Protection Act" of 1986 [*]The controversial Hughes Amendment of the Firearm Owner's Protection Act of 1986 [*]The Crime Control Act of 1990 [*]The Brady Bill of 1994 [*]The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 [/LIST] Unfortunately, wikipedia doesn't usually provide too much information on the reasoning behind the bills. For example, the NFA wiki states that the purpose was to 'regulate what were considered 'gangster weapons' such as machine guns and short barreled shotguns', but no other real decision information other than what is covered. Or, as another example in the excerpt from DC v Heller where they discuss the firearm not being a type of firearm that is covered by the 2A. WHY is that weapon not covered? Where was the decision made that the only firearms citizens are allowed to privately own are those that are in conjunction with normal military equipment, or that it can contribute to the efficiency of a military/militia, and if that is truly what they ruled, then why are we still prohibited from ownership of actual ordinary military equipment? Maybe what I'm really looking for is a court ruling or decision regarding the 2A as, in fact, subject to these types of restrictions, and why they interpreted it that way. Does anything like this exist, or am I pipe-dreaming hoping to find it? If this would better be suited for a private message with someone who is correctly versed in 2A legalese, I'd be happy to talk with someone there as well. Thanks all! [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Looking for some 2A info on prohibited firearms/ordinance
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
