Second Amendment does not apply to semi-automatic firearms

[Kevinkris]

if im not mistaken dangerous as defined by the supreme court in this context means erratic or unpredictable projectile path and/or unreliable action. so how is a semi-automatic weapon as or more dangerous than a short barreled shotgun as defined by the supreme court?

 

[Riot]

I ruled today that the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the internet or television.

The founding fathers could have never anticipated the digital age of unregulated and uncensored information to freely flow through our society.




*Riot Out*

 

[Caveman Jim]

Additionally, Semis are not! Assault weapons. An assault weapon by definition has a selective fire capability. That's historical fact dating back to the first assault rifle in WWII.
Hopefully some very good lawyer will argue this case if it goes up the judicial chain.

Brutus out

Exactly my point for over 20 years, these progressive Liberals and the biased lame stream media labeled these scary evil black rifles back in the 80's.
I am so frickin sick of this label that it chaps my hide whenever I hear it!!!
The real definition of an AR or AK type semi automatic rifle is a personal defense weapon (like the SSA & NSA claimed when they bought 7,000 AR's last year). That is what they called them!!!! DHS agencies to buy up to 7,000 new 5.56x45mm NATO “personal defense weapons”

More at EndtheLie.com - DHS agencies to buy up to 7,000 new 5.56x45mm NATO ?personal defense weapons? | End the Lie ? Independent News

 

[CamoDeafie]

We will always have more guns and more people with guns than them.
Would it be bloody? Yes.
But we would win... "We have the guns, and we have the people"

but do the people have the WILL and the FORTITUDE to commit to it?

 

[ZigZagZeke]

Good F'ing God! The California appeals court cites the USSC in Heller as referencing (correctly according to the 1939 Miller decision) fully automatic fire M-16s as dangerous weapons that would not fall under the protection of the 2nd Amendment. The California appeals court then goes on to assume that the M-16 assault rifle cited is a semi-automatic weapon and that semi-automatic weapons that LOOK like M-16s are "assault rifles", and are therefor excluded from protection under the 2nd Amendment. This completely ignorant and inaccurate conclusion confounds semi-automatic civilian rifles with fully automatic military assault rifles! These people can't possibly be THAT stupid. This needs to go to a federal court.

 

[Sstrand]

Hey, they are from California, they CAN BE THAT STUPID!!!

Sheldon

 

[U201491]

but do the people have the WILL and the FORTITUDE to commit to it?

In a heartbeat

 

[deen_ad]

In a heartbeat

Some will, most won't

 

[Mark W.]

But there were semi auto firearms when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. So how could it not apply to them?

Girandoni Air Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

They key here is, really, the Miller case. Unless that is overturned, it should still be the controlling case. (Of course, I am not an attorney, have never studied law, etc., etc.).

The Miller case was specifically about a weapon that could be used for militia purposes. The Court ruled in favor of the US (Miller was not represented before the Court, he was dead by then), saying "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Since this language is right there, in the beginning of the opinion, it should be obvious to lower courts that any weapon that can be shown to have such a relationship is a protected arm. Of course, this is a court in CA, but I suspect this will be overturned upon appeal.

 

[GunnyG]

They key here is, really, the Miller case. Unless that is overturned, it should still be the controlling case. (Of course, I am not an attorney, have never studied law, etc., etc.).

The Miller case was specifically about a weapon that could be used for militia purposes. The Court ruled in favor of the US (Miller was not represented before the Court, he was dead by then), saying "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

Since this language is right there, in the beginning of the opinion, it should be obvious to lower courts that any weapon that can be shown to have such a relationship is a protected arm. Of course, this is a court in CA, but I suspect this will be overturned upon appeal.

In Miller, the phrase was "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. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this""

Oops!


If evidence of military use is/was truly the threshold, Justice (Capt, USA) Hugo Black should have acknowledged the presence of military-issue shotguns in Miller.


And now, if we can just show "... any evidence tending to show that possession or use of..." some firearm lending itself to being" any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense" all classes of firearms (NFA or not, foreign or domestic) should be available for all lawful possession by citizens.

<broken link removed>
'...To help ensure Marines know how to operate foreign weapons in dire situations, like the one (Capt.) Chontosh found himself in, the Marine Corps created the Foreign Weapons Instructor Course at Weapons and Training Battalion here in 2007. The course expanded Marines' training beyond the simple ability to identify foreign weapons and gave them a much deeper understanding of the ballistic capabilities, safe handling, proper maintenance and effective employment of some of the world's most pervasive weapons....'

 

[Riot]

Some will, most won't

3%-ers, sir.

During the American Revolution, the active forces in the field against the King's tyranny never amounted to more than 3% of the colonists. They were in turn actively supported by perhaps 10% of the population. In addition to these revolutionaries were perhaps another 20% who favored their cause but did little or nothing to support it. Another one-third of the population sided with the King (by the end of the war there were actually more Americans fighting FOR the King than there were in the field against him) and the final third took no side, blew with the wind and took what came.

Sipsey Street Irregulars: What is a "Three Percenter"?

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

Oops!
View attachment 72143

If evidence of military use is/was truly the threshold, Justice (Capt, USA) Hugo Black should have acknowledged the presence of military-issue shotguns in Miller.

The problem was that Miller wasn't represented before the Supreme Court, no one argued his case at all, only the government was heard. Miller had been stabbed to death. (Miller wasn't one of the "good" guys, in some respects, he was a low level criminal with a long record).

Certainly, if he had actually had HIS case heard, he would have won, since the Army used the trench gun in WWI. In fact, if this case were to be brought today, I would think that a reasonable argument could be made to overturn the requirement for a tax stamp on a short barrel shotgun since even the Dept of Education uses them.

 

[GunnyG]

The problem was that Miller wasn't represented before the Supreme Court, no one argued his case at all, only the government was heard. Miller had been stabbed to death. (Miller wasn't one of the "good" guys, in some respects, he was a low level criminal with a long record).

Certainly, if he had actually had HIS case heard, he would have won, since the Army used the trench gun in WWI. In fact, if this case were to be brought today, I would think that a reasonable argument could be made to overturn the requirement for a tax stamp on a short barrel shotgun since even the Dept of Education uses them.

Concur. In fact, I am certain that the untaxed civil possession of a select fire 14.5" barreled M4 carbine would pass that same court test,... if the court wasn't as predisposed as it was for the Miller decision.

 

[deen_ad]

That's the trouble with taking a case to SCOTUS, if you lose it's pretty much forever as there is no where to appeal a decision after that and they won't reconsider a previous case. Plus the previous cases guide their decisions from there on.



Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[deen_ad]

3%-ers, sir.





Sipsey Street Irregulars: What is a "Three Percenter"?

As I said, that's a small portion of the population and most won't join in.


Deen
NRA Life Member, Benefactor Level
Defender of Freedom Award
Second Amendment Foundation Member
Washington Arms Collectors Member
Arms Collectors of SW Washington Member

"A gun is like a parachute. If you need one and don't have it, you'll probably never need one again!"

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

That's the trouble with taking a case to SCOTUS, if you lose it's pretty much forever as there is no where to appeal a decision after that and they won't reconsider a previous case. Plus the previous cases guide their decisions from there on.



Deen

I dunno. At one time, separate but equal was the law, Dred Scott was good law....they do reverse themselves, just slowly....very slowly. Which is a good thing. I'd hate to have them jump to undo Heller or McDonald.

 

[SheepDog223]

So I guess the 1st amendment does not apply to radio, television, and the interwebs then. See how that works?

I was going to say this.... and.... It does not apply to any word accepted into the dictionary after December 15, 1791. Those are new words and we have no need for them in our modern world. Long words that are hard to say will remain legal of course but those short words that happen to be spoken fast.... they're bad.

 

[The B]

But there were semi auto firearms when the 2nd Amendment was ratified. So how could it not apply to them?

Girandoni Air Rifle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Semiautomatic musket with a 30 round magazine in 1779.

Damn sad day you don't learn something new

 

[ZigZagZeke]

That's the trouble with taking a case to SCOTUS, if you lose it's pretty much forever as there is no where to appeal a decision after that and they won't reconsider a previous case. Plus the previous cases guide their decisions from there on.

The US Supreme Court can reverse a decision made by an earlier Court in a different case, but the earlier decision isn't really changed. Instead, the Court makes a contradictory decision on a new case that results in overturning the old precedent. One well-known example is when the justices determined segregation in the public schools was unconstitutional in their decision for Brown v. Board of Education, (1954). This reversed the "separate but equal" doctrine permitting legal segregation, established in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896).

The US Supreme Court can reverse a decision in a particular case the Court has already heard, but they rarely do so. It takes something like a substantial error in the facts of the case as presented to get a rehearing. In all cases, the losing party has 25 days to file a petition to the US Supreme Court for a rehearing of the case. Most petitions for rehearing are denied, but if the Court grants the petition, the case will be docketed for reargument.