Fun reading - DHS preposes AR-15s are suitable for personal defence

[moose]

This announcement is being placed in accordance with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) paragraph 5.207. It is a combined
synopsis/solicitation for commercial items. 5.56x45mm NATO,
select-fire firearm suitable for personal defense.

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0


*Not applicable in NY or other select areas

 

[mkwerx]

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d791b6aa0fd9d3d8833b2efa08300033&tab=core&_cview=0


*Not applicable in NY or other select areas

Wait - they're saying the select fire guns are suitable for personal defense. If select fire is good - so must semi auto, since you're more likely to be more accurate with semi auto fire than flipping the giggle switch and spraying full auto or burst fire.

But then, these EBRs are only suitable for personal defense of government agents, and not the average citizen - at least in the eyes of the .gov

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

But, wait....

US v Miller: "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." United States v. Miller

Now, we CAN show that a select fire, or semi-auto firearm DOES HAVE a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia...

And, under 10 US 311, we ARE the militia so....we all need these select fire weapons, as well as Homeland (in)Security.

 

[SIG383]

I plan on using US v. Miller in my discussion with Sen Nick Harper, among other things...

 

[Kevatc]

But, wait....

US v Miller: "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." United States v. Miller

Now, we CAN show that a select fire, or semi-auto firearm DOES HAVE a reasonable relationship to the efficiency of a militia...

And, under 10 US 311, we ARE the militia so....we all need these select fire weapons, as well as Homeland (in)Security.

I guess I don't have the brains to comprehend legalese. I read the quoted part of the decision and "thought" it said the opposite of your take on it. I will defer to your interpretation. I was talking with a colleagues wife who is a 3rd year law student. I told her I can't hardly figure out exactly what the ORS on guns actually say and mean. She laughed and said the law students have a saying that if the statutes were written in plain English there would be no need for attorneys.

 

[Arkarayne]

"Written laws are one-third interpretation and two-thirds persuasion of that interpretation." --Me. lol

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

I guess I don't have the brains to comprehend legalese. I read the quoted part of the decision and "thought" it said the opposite of your take on it. I will defer to your interpretation. ....

It's easy. The Miller decision was about a sawed off shotgun that was regulated and required a tax stamp. Miller was arrested and charged. He said it was his "militia" weapon and was legal. A circuit court agreed. The US appealed to the Supreme Court. Miller was dead by this time, and did not appear before the court. The court only heard from the US, which said a short barreled shot gun was not suitable for militia use (if argued, it would have been shown that the US military did use short barreled shotguns in WWI).... The decision has been held up by the gun prohibition lobby as saying that a firearm had to have a militia purpose.

We can show that an AR is the weapon of the type and caliber in general usage, and most assuredly the DHS is using it as a "defensive" weapon. Therefore, the AR is the weapon that should be used by militia forces.

According to title 10, 311 US code, every adult male between 17 and 45 IS a member of the unorganized militia, and SHOULD have an AR, following the logic of the Supreme Court.