Gun rights take a hit in appeals court

quote:

---

Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court according to NBC News.

---

Have these judges read the Second Amendment? Better yet how about their own ruling on it? You can't say it doesn't protect military arms and then say a weapons has to have "military use." That is what the court just said in their 10-4 ruling.

They should prepare themselves for the emotional trauma that comes with being reversed.

quote:

---

Judge Robert King

---

quote:

---

joined the court in 1998 after being nominated by President Bill Clinton

---

Imagine that

quote:

---

I'm no lawyer, but I feel like that was exactly the reason the 2nd was written.

Someone teach me something.

---

It's not the easiest question to answer. The Second Amendment was written for the purpose of insuring that militia (basically the National Guard, see Federalist 29) could be called upon to fight any foreign invaders and that there would be weapons for them to use, most likely individual weapons that they would own themselves.

However, the variety of arms available today did not exist then but there were other "arms" than firearms.

So, does the second amendment guarantee the right of individuals who are not in the National Guard to own weapons? Maybe.

Does it apply to semi-automatic rifles, or any rifle that fires cartridges? Maybe.

Does it also apply to shoulder-fired, surface to air missiles? Who knows. You won't find any comments explaining whether the drafters of the Constitution meant that kind of "arms." And if the amendment applies to individuals, then you can make as good an argument that it applies to nuclear weapons as to semi-auto or automatic firearms.

There's a lot of argument built into that amendment and an extreme reluctance to just amend it to state anything more clearly.

quote:

---

ETA: With State governments receiving federal funding, and the National Guard being led by governors of the state, the labeling of the NG as a militia is not accurate. It is an arm of the federally funded military.

---

That is correct. Also add that National Guard members are not given any special rights to buy firearms. Matter of fact cops have more power. An example is the 1994 assault weapons ban. National Guard members wm were just as restricted as anyone here; however, LEOS could buy them and new "high cap" magazines.

You're wrong bud.

It's a very lazy interpretation because the military doesn't use strictly semi-auto ARs so technically the civilian version is not a "weapon of war."

Let me guess, you consider yourself to be pro-gun? Am I right?

quote:

---

Only foreign invaders? No. Also a government that oversteps its bounds, which are also laid out in the Constitution and underlined by language in the Declaration of Independence for historical context.

ETA: With State governments receiving federal funding, and the National Guard being led by governors of the state, the labeling of the NG as a militia is not accurate. It is an arm of the federally funded military.

---

Federalist 29 clearly explains what the founders were talking about when they used the word militia, including it's purpose.

As to the declaration of independence, that was a written justification for going to war against England, not an organizational document for the government of the United States. Further, the amendments were offered in oder to assure several reluctant states that the powers that they had ceded to the Federal government would have certain limitations. The purpose of the militia was not to retain the ability overthrow the US Government or the state governments, although that idea is popular with the quacks.

quote:

---

Not even close, Federal laws specifically proscribe the National Guard in that capacity.

---

Well, I'd love to hear your argument about how subsequent federal law defines the intent of the framers. The fact is, the "well-regulated militia" referred to in the Second Amendment didn't refer to all individuals and Federalist 29 explains this. This muddies the subsequent language that would appear to give every individual the right to "keep and bear" arms. If the framers didn't want the amendment tied to militia service, they could have left it out.

quote:

---

That has no bearing on how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted. We didn't have cell phones, satellites, and a global communications network when the First Amendment was ratified either.

---

No, it only has relevance if you are trying to determine what the framers meant. If you are not concerned with that and think of the constitution as a living document, then you can simply adapt "arms" to the current meaning of the term.

quote:

---

It applies to the kinds of individual weapons an individual is likely to muster with. Shoulder-fired missiles and nuclear weapons are not such weapons.

---

Like so?

". . . the right of the people to keep and bear the kind of individual weapons an individual is likely to muster with shall not be infringed."

That really doesn't sound right does it? Certain a "well-regulated" militia wouldn't muster with whatever arms they felt like bringing. Even most police departments regulate what weapons are to be used by the officers.

As to the well-settledness of the individual right, that is based solely on Heller, a 5-4 decision written by a now-deceased judge. It also glosses over the fact that the Heller court noted that many types of restrictions on guns would remain valid such as the prohibition of owning dangerous or unusual weapons (you know like short-barrelled shotguns, fully automatic weapons, etc) as well as restrictions on commercial sale, prohibitions against certain people, like felons, owning weapons etc. So, Heller isn't nearly the win for gun ownership rights that you want to make it out to be and it does not answer the question of whether the ownership of particular models/types of rifles are protected.