|
|
helomech
Extreme Tracker
Reged: 11/14/07
Posts: 4425
Loc: Latexo, tx
|
Supreme court thinks the federal firarms machine gun act may be unconstitutional.
06/29/08 12:45 PM
|
|
|
I am trying to read the entire ruling on the d.c. gun ban. It is 157 pages, but I ran across this in my reading.
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)).
|
|
0 registered and 4 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Big_Orn, HWY_MAN, bankrunner, BuckMaster, dgilbert, JohnWester, Guy, gr_elliott, jeh7mmmag, TreeBass, Team Hillbilly
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Rating:
Thread views: 303
|
|
|
|
|
|
Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5
©2007 OUTDOOR SITES NETWORK all rights reserved USA and Worldwide.
|