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: 2133476" data-attributes="member: 18680"><p>This is getting close to what I'm looking for! Thanks! Please see my follow ups below.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Although my personal opinions are very similar, I'm doing my best to remain impartial to the argument. Rather than looking at it as a 'I need to find out a way to repeal all these unconstitutional laws', I am looking at it as a sort of research project. Why were these laws put into place to begin with. If they were clearly unconstitutional at the time, why were they still passed? What reasoning did they have for doing it, and why did no one challenge it? If it has been challenged, and is still clearly unconstitutional, why is it not repealed?</p><p>_________________________________________________________________</p><p></p><p>I've been doing more reading and have a few more things that I've drummed up:</p><p></p><p>Precursor: I realize that wikipedia is not the place for defining legal opinions, but I'm not sure where else I can look? </p><p></p><p>I just seem to be coming across a lot of conflicting court opinions when it comes to firearm case law. For example, in the Miller case, there is an excerpt that seems to be the gist of the decision:</p><p></p><p><em>"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."</em></p><p></p><p>But, it seems like Heller v DC and the SCOTUS ruling on that conflicts this information:</p><p></p><p><em>(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2&#8211;53.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47&#8211;54.</em></p><p></p><p>The NFA wiki page has a section talking about:</p><p></p><p><em>No evidence that such a firearm was "ordinary military equipment" had been presented at the trial court [...]</em></p><p></p><p>and yet somehow they ended up at</p><p></p><p><em>the Supreme Court reversed the District Court and held that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not violative of the Second Amendment's restriction and therefore was not unconstitutional.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p></p><p>I just don't get it I guess?</p><p></p><p>First they want a relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita, despite that not being (and conceded as such, later in the Heller case) the sole reason for the 2A.</p><p></p><p>Then, they say that the limits that are enforced are those firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. So, wouldn't we be covered under everything that is used for current military purposes (i.e. full automatic firearms, tanks, ordinance ) since they are used on a daily basis? Especially considering the NFA itself references "ordinary military equipment " as being the starting point for something that should be banned.</p><p></p><p>Hell, I was even reading one decision that specifically stated they were defining the word arms, which as far as I've found states:</p><p></p><p>arms plural of arms (Noun)</p><p>Noun</p><p></p><p> *Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms".</p><p> *Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries.</p><p></p><p>When reading 'armaments' you get:</p><p>armaments plural of ar·ma·ment (Noun)</p><p>Noun</p><p></p><p> *Military weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments".</p><p> *The process of equipping military forces for war.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Even then they aren't making any sense, as it's clearly a part of the definition of arms, military weapons and equipment are included.</p><p></p><p>Forgive my ignorance on the subject. I'm not a trained lawyer, and I don't think I'll be learning a hundred years worth of 2A case law in just a few days, but this type of contradiction, or grey area, seems to be the norm everywhere I look. I've always been very interested in law, but it's only been recently that I've really wanted to find out how all of these decisions were made.</p><p></p><p>Apologies for the long post.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Joeh, post: 2133476, member: 18680"] This is getting close to what I'm looking for! Thanks! Please see my follow ups below. Although my personal opinions are very similar, I'm doing my best to remain impartial to the argument. Rather than looking at it as a 'I need to find out a way to repeal all these unconstitutional laws', I am looking at it as a sort of research project. Why were these laws put into place to begin with. If they were clearly unconstitutional at the time, why were they still passed? What reasoning did they have for doing it, and why did no one challenge it? If it has been challenged, and is still clearly unconstitutional, why is it not repealed? _________________________________________________________________ I've been doing more reading and have a few more things that I've drummed up: Precursor: I realize that wikipedia is not the place for defining legal opinions, but I'm not sure where else I can look? I just seem to be coming across a lot of conflicting court opinions when it comes to firearm case law. For example, in the Miller case, there is an excerpt that seems to be the gist of the decision: [I]"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."[/I] But, it seems like Heller v DC and the SCOTUS ruling on that conflicts this information: [I](1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.[/I] The NFA wiki page has a section talking about: [I]No evidence that such a firearm was "ordinary military equipment" had been presented at the trial court [...][/I] and yet somehow they ended up at [I]the Supreme Court reversed the District Court and held that the NFA provision (criminalizing possession of certain firearms) was not violative of the Second Amendment's restriction and therefore was not unconstitutional. [/I] I just don't get it I guess? First they want a relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated milita, despite that not being (and conceded as such, later in the Heller case) the sole reason for the 2A. Then, they say that the limits that are enforced are those firearms that are in common use for lawful purposes. So, wouldn't we be covered under everything that is used for current military purposes (i.e. full automatic firearms, tanks, ordinance ) since they are used on a daily basis? Especially considering the NFA itself references "ordinary military equipment " as being the starting point for something that should be banned. Hell, I was even reading one decision that specifically stated they were defining the word arms, which as far as I've found states: arms plural of arms (Noun) Noun *Weapons and ammunition; armaments: "they were subjugated by force of arms". *Distinctive emblems or devices, forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries. When reading 'armaments' you get: armaments plural of ar·ma·ment (Noun) Noun *Military weapons and equipment: "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments". *The process of equipping military forces for war. Even then they aren't making any sense, as it's clearly a part of the definition of arms, military weapons and equipment are included. Forgive my ignorance on the subject. I'm not a trained lawyer, and I don't think I'll be learning a hundred years worth of 2A case law in just a few days, but this type of contradiction, or grey area, seems to be the norm everywhere I look. I've always been very interested in law, but it's only been recently that I've really wanted to find out how all of these decisions were made. Apologies for the long post. [/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
