|
|
|
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:
Court Rules That ‘Machine Guns’ are Not Protected by Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
is 1 comment
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
In their opinion, the judges referred to the landmark decision in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. Following the previous ruling, the judges found that automatic firearms were both “dangerous” and “unusual,” and could not be protected under the Second Amendment since they were not in common use. The judges noted that there are well over eight million AR-15 and AK-style semi-automatic rifles in the United States, but only 175,977 pre-1986 automatic firearms in civilian hands.
“The Second Amendment does not create a right to possess a weapon solely because a weapon may be used in or is useful for militia or military service,” stated the appeals court.
|
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(7/7/2016)
|
".... automatic firearms were both “dangerous” and “unusual,” and could not be protected under the Second Amendment since they were not in common use....."
Good job, Washington!
First you pass a law in 1933 to make "machineguns" rare, and then the misguided courts say that they're NOT protected by the 2A because of a condition created by the government in the first place!!
Isn't it amazing how jurisprudence works in America?? [/sarcasm] |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| "Some people think that the Second Amendment is an outdated relic of an earlier time. Doubtless some also think that constitutional protections of other rights are outdated relics of earlier times. We The People own those rights regardless, unless and until We The People repeal them. For those who believe it to be outdated, the Second Amendment provides a good test of whether their allegiance is really to the Constitution of the United States, or only to their preferences in public policies and audiences. The Constitution is law, not vague aspirations, and we are obligated to protect, defend, and apply it. If the Second Amendment were truly an outdated relic, the Constitution provides a method for repeal. The Constitution does not furnish the federal courts with an eraser." --9th Circuit Court Judge Andrew Kleinfeld, dissenting opinion in which the court refused to rehear the case while citing deeply flawed anti-Second Amendment nonsense (Nordyke v. King; opinion filed April 5, 2004) |
|
|
