|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
The Second Amendment and 'weapons of war'
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 2 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
The express purpose of the Second Amendment was to guarantee the continued maintenance of an armed populace. In fact, the Second Militia Act of 1792 legally required every adult able-bodied white American male to own and maintain “weapons of war” (a musket or rifle, bayonet, powder and bullets) just in case the militia had to be called out.
Even in the 1939 case usually cited to justify victim disarmament (“gun control”) laws, U.S. v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the reason Jack Miller's short-barreled shotgun could be banned was that it WASN’T a weapon of war: “[I]t 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.” |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(3/10/2017)
|
“[I]t 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.”
Notice the trick the lawyers pulled. They said that A PARTICULAR SHOTGUN had no useful militia/army purpose.
Maybe not Miller's particular shotgung, but shotguns have been used in every war since their invention. In WW1 they were called "trench brooms."
But because of legal chicanery, SCOTUS blew the Miller case and we're living with the results. |
| Comment by:
kangpc
(3/10/2017)
|
All American shooters should be familiar with the Miller case.
"... the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument."
In fact, he absconded and was found shot to death before the decision was rendered.
And anyone who believes that short-barrelled shotguns were not used in the trenches of WWI is simply ignorant of the facts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right. [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] |
|
|
